Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD91267 Case Number: LCR13353 Section / Act: S20(1) Parties: TINSLEY WIRE LIMITED - and - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION |
Dispute concerning an agreement on re-employment at the Company.
Recommendation:
5. Having considered the submissions and the oral evidence
presented at the hearing, the Court considers that there is merit
in the cases put forward by the Company and by the Union
respectively. Taking account of the background to the case, the
requirement of the Company to have as effective a workforce as
possible and the concern of the Union for its members who were
made redundant, the Court is of the view that it would be in the
best interest of both parties if the Company extended its
"re-employment" commitment to 30/6/92 or to the date on which a
further two of the redundant staff are re-employed if this occurs
earlier.
The Court so recommends.
Division: CHAIRMAN Mr McHenry Mr Rorke
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD91267 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR13353
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 20(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT 1969
PARTIES: TINSLEY WIRE LIMITED
(REPRESENTED BY THE FEDERATION OF IRISH EMPLOYERS)
and
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Dispute concerning an agreement on re-employment at the
Company.
BACKGROUND:
2. 1. During April-June, 1989 (10 weeks), the Union was in
dispute with Unidare Transformers Limited. Workers employed
in sister companies supported the strike. Labour Court
investigations were held into the disputes and Labour Court
Recommendations issued on 29th May, 1989. The disputes were
finally resolved at conciliation on 16th June, 1989. The
final terms of settlement were based on the Labour Court
Recommendations.
2. L.C.R. 12415 which specifically dealt with the dispute
with the Company stated inter alia:-
"that for a period of two years from the date of this
Recommendation the Company will undertake to reserve for
a member of the Unidare Transformer workforce made
redundant by the present closure any job vacancy that
arises provided he has applied for the job and is a
suitable candidate. That selection be by suitability
only and that the Company set-up an appropriate system
for the notification of vacancies."
3. The Company had since 1989 employed 2 people from the list
of redundant staff. Seven others were also employed by sister
companies. In May, 1990, the Company had 2 vacancies and
interviewed 5 of the redundant workers. The Company did not
employ any of the redundant workers and the vacancies were
filled from outside. Two of the redundant workers were kept
on file in the event of future vacancies.
4. The Union took issue with the Company on its recruitment
policy. The Union maintained that it had been agreed at the
conciliation conference of 16th June, 1989, that the redundant
workers would be taken on in "descending order of
suitability." The Company maintained that the only
recruitment criteria was "suitability" as set out in L.C.R.
12415. A conciliation conference was held on the dispute on
6th June, 1990. No progress was made and the Union submitted
the dispute to the Labour Court by letter dated 16th May, 1991
under Section 20 of the Industrial Relations Act, 1946. The
Union agreed to be bound by the Court's decision. A Labour
Court investigation took place on 9th July, 1991 (earliest
available date).
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Union believes that there are 2 issues before the
Court for consideration:
(a) The settlement terms dealing with "suitability" and
selection based on "descending order of suitability."
and
(b) The grounds for the Company decision to deem the five
applicants as "unsuitable."
2. Agreement on "descending order of suitability" was reached
with the Company at the conciliation conference of 16th June,
1989. This clear view of the Union is reinforced by the
Assistant General Secretary of the Irish Congress of Trade
Union (I.C.T.U.) who was present at the negotiations (details
supplied).
3. All of the 5 redundant workers found to be unsuitable had
long service before being made redundant. The Company's
dismissal of the Union's understanding of the settlement terms
and their refusal to give adequate reasons for failing to hire
long service employee's, is contrary to the spirit of the
"Return to Work Agreement." The Union are seeking the
"redeployment clause" in the settlement terms to be extended
in the case of the Company until 30th June, 1992.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Union argument of using "descending order of
suitability" as the only criteria for the recruitment of
redundant workers was never an issue. The Company was never
advised at any stage during the settlement negotiations that
this was the belief or understanding of the Union.
"Suitability" was only discussed as stated in the Labour Court
Recommendation. It was never subject to the qualification
alleged by the Union.
2. The Company accepted in full L.C.R. 12415 and has adhered
to both the spirit and intent of it's provisions (details
supplied). Preferential consideration was given to the
redundant workers being interviewed over and above ordinary
applicants (less stringent requirements were set). As a
result, 2 redundant workers were taken on and 2 others being
held on file for future suitable vacancies.
3. The recommendation clearly set out "suitability" as the
only criteria for selection. No other variation or
interpretation was agreed or discussed during conciliation.
No agreement was ever entered into, based on such phrases or
understanding as "descending order of suitability."
RECOMMENDATION:
5. Having considered the submissions and the oral evidence
presented at the hearing, the Court considers that there is merit
in the cases put forward by the Company and by the Union
respectively. Taking account of the background to the case, the
requirement of the Company to have as effective a workforce as
possible and the concern of the Union for its members who were
made redundant, the Court is of the view that it would be in the
best interest of both parties if the Company extended its
"re-employment" commitment to 30/6/92 or to the date on which a
further two of the redundant staff are re-employed if this occurs
earlier.
The Court so recommends.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Heffernan
_______________________
19th July, 1991 Chairman
J.F./J.C.