Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD90382 Case Number: LCR13029 Section / Act: S67 Parties: SHANNON HERITAGE LIMITED - and - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION |
Dispute involving six contract staff concerning Winter lay-offs.
Recommendation:
6. The Court having examined all aspects of the case as submitted
by the parties recommends that the staff laid off be compensated
for the period of lay off as follows:-
1. Gerard Treacy #1000
2. Patrick Malone #1000
3. Susan Kennelly #1000
4. Ken Menton #1000
5. Michael Swords # 500
6. Michael Brody # 500
The Court further recommends the parties agree a contract which
will apply for the future including the Winter period 1990, such
agreement to take account of the staffing needs of the Company and
the expectations of the workers.
The Court is available to assist in the event that agreement on
the contract to apply cannot be reached.
Division: MrMcGrath Mr Brennan Mr Walsh
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD90382 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR13029
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 67
PARTIES: SHANNON HERITAGE LIMITED
(REPRESENTED BY THE FEDERATION OF IRISH EMPLOYERS)
and
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Dispute involving six contract staff concerning Winter
lay-offs.
BACKGROUND:
2. In 1987, Shannon Heritage Limited, a wholly-owned subsidiary
of Shannon Development, took over responsibility for the
management and operation of the Bunratty Folk Park and other
tourist attractions in the region. Such responsibility had
previously rested with Castle Tours, a division of Aer Rianta.
Later that year it was agreed that the status of temporary staff
employed in the Folk Park should be improved and some key
personnel who were considered critical to the operation were
offered, and subsequently accepted, 3 year employment contracts.
3. A dispute has arisen following the Company's decision in
November, 1989 to lay-off contract staff for the Winter months.
Staff were also advised that they would also be laid-off in the
Winter of 1990/91. The Company claims that the contracts accepted
by the claimants contain provisions for lay-offs during the Winter
months. The Union rejects this and argues that lay-offs were only
to happen due to "external circumstances." Four contract staff
were laid off in December, 1989 and two others were placed on
short-time working. The Union disputes the Company's right to
lay-off any of the staff concerned and is seeking compensation for
those laid-off last Winter. Local level discussions failed to
resolve the dispute and the matter was referred to the
conciliation service of the Labour Court on the 2nd March, 1990.
No agreement was reached at a conciliation conference on the 18th
May and on the 3rd July the matter was referred to the Labour
Court for investigation and recommendation (the referral was held
back to allow local discussion on other issues). A Court hearing
was held in Limerick on the 21st August, 1990.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. Clause 2 of the contracts provided for lay-offs due to
external circumstances. Staff who sought clarification of
this clause were informed that it would only apply where there
had been a very poor season. Management cannot, therefore,
use this reason for lay-offs last Winter as that year tour
bookings and folk park admissions were up 40% on the
corresponding ten months in 1988. There was also a very
substantial increase in receipts from the Gift Shop (details
supplied to the Court).
2. Management also indicated that there would be lay-offs for
1990/1991 (in 1989). There is no way that it could forecast a
downturn in business two seasons ahead.
3. A second reason given for the lay-offs was that the
Company needed to build up a financial backup for the future
development of the Park. In the Union's view, the staff are
every bit as essential for the future of the Park. They are
the people who meet the public and create the atmosphere as
well as providing the back-up services necessary to run the
Park on a day to day basis.
4. The Company considers the Winter lay-offs as being the
external factor mentioned in the contract. This is not so.
If it was the case there would have been no need for contracts
as non-permanent staff were generally laid-off each Winter.
This was an accepted part of temporary employment in the Folk
Park. The contracts were issued to improve the status of
employment for at least the period of the contract. If the
lay-offs continue, there will be no improvement in the status
of employment. If Winter lay-offs were intended, it should
have been specified as such in the contract.
5. The lay-offs were a Management reaction to industrial
relations problems within the Company. Because of concern for
such matters as low pay, job security, excessive use of F.A.S.
trainees and poor staff/management relations, the contract
staff joined the Union in early 1989. The Union was informed
in October that unless the F.A.S. schemes were continued into
the Winter, the Park would be closed. Even after the
continuation of the scheme was accepted, the contract staff
were laid-off.
6. The Court is requested to recommend that the contracts as
they stand at present do not provide for what would be
considered as a normal Winter lay-off situation and that
compensation should be paid for the lay-off period.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS;
5. 1. The contracts contained provision for a lay-off during the
Winter months. This was discussed with, and fully accepted
by, the staff concerned. In effect, therefore, the contracts
guaranteed Summer work only.
2. The nature of the business is seasonal and is heavily
dependent on factors outside the Company's direct control -
international exchange rates, success or otherwise of overseas
promotions being carried out by other agencies on behalf of
the Company, changes in tourism trends etc. It is therefore
essential that there be a lay-off provision contained in the
contracts.
3. The Company is a commercial operation and is dependent on
the generation of its own income to maintain viability.
Previously, income and expenditure was absorbed by Aer Rianta.
Therefore, the Company must now implement appropriate
economies such as temporary lay-offs, if it is to successfully
manage its financial affairs and also to have the capacity to
retain the Folk Park and castle facilities open all year round
thereby providing on-going employment for a significant number
of staff.
4. Management vigorously denies any suggestion that the
lay-offs are a result of any industrial relations problems in
the Company.
RECOMMENDATION:
6. The Court having examined all aspects of the case as submitted
by the parties recommends that the staff laid off be compensated
for the period of lay off as follows:-
1. Gerard Treacy #1000
2. Patrick Malone #1000
3. Susan Kennelly #1000
4. Ken Menton #1000
5. Michael Swords # 500
6. Michael Brody # 500
The Court further recommends the parties agree a contract which
will apply for the future including the Winter period 1990, such
agreement to take account of the staffing needs of the Company and
the expectations of the workers.
The Court is available to assist in the event that agreement on
the contract to apply cannot be reached.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Tom McGrath
__________________________
27th September, 1990 Deputy Chairman.
D.H./J.C.