Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD91543 Case Number: LCR13473 Section / Act: S20(1) Parties: GATEAUX LIMITED - and - BAKERY AND FOOD WORKERS AMALGAMATED UNION |
Alleged failure by the Company to honour an agreement with the Union.
Recommendation:
5. The Court has heard the submissions made by the parties on the
issue which hinges almost completely on an interpretation of an
agreement made by them relating particularly to the staff in
question.
From the content of the document of which the particular agreement
forms part, it is evident that the Company wished to retain a
degree of discretion on the matter of voluntary redundancy of the
sales force, particularly in terms of numbers, and in fact had no
obligation to accept all applications. As the agreement is
written they were in fact entitled simply to accept six
applicants.
On the other hand, the terms of the offer were made to the Union
and the obligation was placed on the Union alone to forward the
list of applicants. To this extent at least the Company forfeited
the right to pick and choose between various elements in the sales
force.
On balance, the Court takes the view that, regardless of the
internal disagreements within the Union, it was left to the Union
to choose eight candidates, and the Union had a reasonable
expectation of redundancy payments to that number.
The Court therefore recommends concession of the Union's claim.
Division: Mr O'Connell Mr Keogh Mr Rorke
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD91543 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR13473
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 20(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT 1969
PARTIES: GATEAUX LIMITED
(REPRESENTED BY THE FEDERATION OF IRISH EMPLOYERS)
and
BAKERY AND FOOD WORKERS AMALGAMATED UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Alleged failure by the Company to honour an agreement with the
Union.
BACKGROUND;
2. Following an industrial dispute which began in June, 1990 the
Company ceased manufacturing in Ireland in August, 1990. At a
conciliation conference held in September, 1990 the Company
reached agreement with the Union to consider a maximum of eight
applications for redundancy from the sales force provided that the
Union submitted a list of names. The Union did so. The Company
declared eight salesmen redundant; six were from the Union's list
and two were from the country sales force. The Union sought to
have the remaining two workers on the list made redundant but the
Company rejected the claim on the grounds that it had made the
eight most senior salesmen in the total sales force redundant.
Subsequently the Union referred the issue to the Labour Relations
Commission but the Company declined an invitation to attend a
conciliation conference. The Union referred the dispute to the
Labour Court on the 4th October, 1991, under Section 20(1) of the
Industrial Relations Act, 1969 and agreed to be bound by the
Court's recommendation. The Court investigated the dispute on the
4th November, 1991.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The settlement proposals of 19th September, 1990 which
were accepted by both parties stipulated that the Company
would consider applications for redundancy from the sales
force provided that the Union submitted a list of names.
Accordingly the Union submitted a list of eight names. Yet
the Company only made six workers redundant from the list.
The Company by its action is in breach of the agreement. The
Union has tried, without success, to have meetings with
Management on the issue. The Union submitted a list of Dublin
based salesmen because the country salesforce had resigned
from the Union following the commencement of the dispute as
they decided to continue working. A number of Dublin based
salesmen wished to leave the Company therefore the Union
compiled its list of eight from their number. The Union
requests the Court to recommend that the Company make the two
workers concerned redundant and pay them their entitlements.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Company's offer to allow a limited number of
redundancies in the sales force was made as a gesture of
goodwill in response to the Union's claim. Management was
aware that certain members of the sales force did not wish to
continue working. The agreement clearly stated "the Company
will consider some applications for redundancy with a maximum
of eight". No guarantee was given that eight would be granted
or who those eight would be.
2. The Company had a responsibility to treat all its
employees fairly. When the Union submitted its list it was
clearly representing the Dublin based sales force although the
entire sales force were members of the Union. The agreement
reached at conciliation did not confine itself to Dublin based
employees. The Company in fairness decided to circulate a
memo outlining its position to the total sales force and
received ten applications for redundancy. Selection was made
on a seniority basis as this was the fairest method and was in
accordance with the long established principle expressed by
the Union in its dealings with the Company.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. The Court has heard the submissions made by the parties on the
issue which hinges almost completely on an interpretation of an
agreement made by them relating particularly to the staff in
question.
From the content of the document of which the particular agreement
forms part, it is evident that the Company wished to retain a
degree of discretion on the matter of voluntary redundancy of the
sales force, particularly in terms of numbers, and in fact had no
obligation to accept all applications. As the agreement is
written they were in fact entitled simply to accept six
applicants.
On the other hand, the terms of the offer were made to the Union
and the obligation was placed on the Union alone to forward the
list of applicants. To this extent at least the Company forfeited
the right to pick and choose between various elements in the sales
force.
On balance, the Court takes the view that, regardless of the
internal disagreements within the Union, it was left to the Union
to choose eight candidates, and the Union had a reasonable
expectation of redundancy payments to that number.
The Court therefore recommends concession of the Union's claim.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
John O'Connell
____________________
16th December, 1991 Deputy Chairman.
T.O'D./J.C.