Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD90659 Case Number: LCR13081 Section / Act: S67 Parties: BORD NA MONA - and - AMALGAMATED TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS UNION |
Dispute concerning rate of pay and credit for service for a named employee.
Recommendation:
8. Having heard submissions relating to the worker's change in
status the Court is satisfied that the Bord acted fairly in his
case both in the matter of his release prior to the end of the
season in 1975 and in respect of the terms under which he was
re-engaged in 1978. The Court notes particularly that the worker
concerned made no attempt to notify the Bord of his availability
for work either during 1976 or 1977 despite being familiar with
the procedure for doing so. The Court therefore does not
recommend concession of the Union's claim.
Division: Mr O'Connell Mr McHenry Mr Walsh
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD90659 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR13081
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 67
PARTIES: BORD NA MONA
AND
AMALGAMATED TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Dispute concerning rate of pay and credit for service for a
named employee.
BACKGROUND:
2. The case of the worker here concerned is broadly similar to
that of the the claimants referred to in Labour Court
Recommendation LCR13077. He was first employed on a seasonal
basis on 22nd April, 1970. He continued to work each year as a
seasonal upto the 1975 season. A fortnight before the season was
due to finish the worker approached the Manager and informed him
that he had received an offer of work at Asahi Site for a building
contractor and wished to avail of the offer. The Manager
indicated that he was prepared to release him.
3. The worker did not work the 1976 or 1977 season. At the start
of the 1978 season the worker called to the office and was offered
employment a few days later. He took up this offer and has worked
every season since. When he commenced employment in 1978 he was
treated as a new employee and placed on the bottom of the pay
scale. The worker has queried this intermittingly over the years
and maintains that when he was allowed to finish early in the 1975
season he was given to understand that there would be no break in
his service and that he would be recalled the following year. The
Company reject this position and contend that the worker was
informed that he could leave his employment early in the 1975
season and he would have known that he would have to register for
work in order to be recalled the following season. Had he done so
there would have been no break in his service on account of
finishing early in the previous season.
4. The Union lodged a claim for continuous service and
retrospective pay on behalf of the worker. Discussions at local
level and the conciliation conference of 31st August, 1990 failed
to resolve the issue. The claim was also the subject of the
Labour Court hearing held in Castlebar on 17th October, 1990.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
5. 1. The worker was advised that he should take the job in
Killala and in so doing it would not interfere with his Bord
Na Mona service. He was also asked if he would be available
for the following season to which he replied that he would be.
In 1976 there was a strike at Oweninny and most of that
season's production was lost and the majority of seasonal men
were not offered work until 5th August. The worker here
concerned was not offered work then or in 1977. In 1978 he
called to the Works Office enquiring as to why he had not been
recalled in the previous two seasons. Four days later he was
recalled. He has had to climb back up the service ladder from
1978 and only in recent years has he achieved a position which
gives him anything like his earnings of previous years. Under
the circumstances the Union's claim is fair and reasonable.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
6. 1. The Company rejected the claim as the worker was fully
aware of the procedure for obtaining seasonal work at
Oweninny. From the time he first applied in 1970 he
re-applied each year up to and including 1975 by placing his
name on the register to indicate his availability for work.
He did not apply for work in 1976 or 1977. In 1978 he
followed the normal procedures by applying for seasonal
employment. By failing to make himself available for work for
the two seasons concerned he broke his service and was
employed in 1978 as a new employee.
RECOMMENDATION:
8. Having heard submissions relating to the worker's change in
status the Court is satisfied that the Bord acted fairly in his
case both in the matter of his release prior to the end of the
season in 1975 and in respect of the terms under which he was
re-engaged in 1978. The Court notes particularly that the worker
concerned made no attempt to notify the Bord of his availability
for work either during 1976 or 1977 despite being familiar with
the procedure for doing so. The Court therefore does not
recommend concession of the Union's claim.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court,
John O'Connell
__16th__November,__1990. ___________________
M. D. / M. F. Deputy Chairman