Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD91514 Case Number: LCR13472 Section / Act: S26(1) Parties: A.B. CONVERTERS LIMITED - and - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION |
Dispute concerning the alleged breach of an agreement.
Recommendation:
5. The Court has very carefully considered the submissions both
oral and written made by the parties at the hearing in this case.
It has come to the conclusion that particularly in view of the
difference in perception of the circumstances in the firm last
February and March that it must rely for its recommendation on a
strict reading of the terms of the Agreement of 19th December
last. Part 1 of the Agreement is clearly not an undertaking to
re-employ any of the workers involved and in the Court's view the
call to interview was a reasonable interpretation of the Company's
obligation under Part 1.
The reason that none of the workers involved in this case was
re-employed was to a large degree determined by the fact that, on
their own evidence, those who attended for interview indicated
dissatisfaction with one or several aspects of the work on offer.
Furthermore it is clear that the Company was not in a position to
know of the circumstances of the worker who was ill but did not
respond to the call to interview.
The Court regrets that the outcome of the above events appears for
the time being at least to nullify the terms of L.C.R. 13162, but
on the basis of the facts as presented to it the Court accepts
that the Company acted within the terms of the Agreement of 19th
December and it therefore does not recommend concession of the
Union's claim.
Division: Mr O'Connell Mr McHenry Mr Devine
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD91514 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR13472
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1946
PARTIES: A.B. CONVERTERS LIMITED
(REPRESENTED BY THE FEDERATION OF IRISH EMPLOYERS)
and
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Dispute concerning the alleged breach of an agreement.
BACKGROUND:
2. The dispute concerns 7 female workers who were employed by the
Company in 1990. During this time they joined the Union; the
Company refused to recognise the Union and an industrial dispute
took place. The issue was the subject of a Labour Court
investigation in December, 1990. The Court recommended that the
Company recognise the Union and also that the parties should meet
to discuss any other issues in dispute (L.C.R. 13162 refers). At
a conciliation conference held on the 19th December, 1990 the
dispute was settled and agreement was reached between the Company
and the Union on a redundancy settlement (details supplied to the
Court). The workers accepted severance payments arising from the
termination of their employment with the Company. Clause 1 of the
agreement also stated "that in the event of the Company acquiring
expected new business the Company will give every consideration to
people with previous experience when filling such jobs". Extra
staff were recruited in February/March, 1991 and the workers
concerned were interviewed but none obtained employment with the
Company. The Union claimed that the Company is in breach of
Clause 1 of the Agreement of 19th December, 1990. Management
rejected the claim. The issue was referred to the Conciliation
Service of the Labour Relations Commission on the 19th June, 1991.
A conciliation conference was held on the 10th September, 1991 but
no agreement was reached. The dispute was referred to the Labour
Court for investigation and recommendation on the 20th September,
1991. The Court investigated the dispute on the 1st November,
1991.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Company has not fulfilled its obligation under Clause
1 of the Agreement of 19th December, 1990. When the Union
first contacted the Company it was evident that Management had
invited other personnel to apply for employment. It was only
after the telephone contact that the workers concerned were
invited to attend for interview. Prior to the Agreement of
19th December, 1990 the Managing Director stated that one of
the workers concerned was an excellent worker and he would
re-employ her if an opportunity arose. This opportunity did
arise but the worker was not re-employed. With regard to
another worker the Company was aware that she was unavailable
for interview as she was on certified sick leave. Yet
Management stated that she did not turn up for interview.
2. The Union has produced copies of the statements of the
workers concerned in relation to their interviews (details
supplied to the Court). Those statements clearly indicate
that the workers concerned were prepared to work for the
Company. The letters show that Management conducted the
interviews in such a fashion as to optimise the prospect of
the workers concerned saying something in response to
questions that would justify the Company's refusal to employ
them.
3. The majority of the workers recruited from the interview
process had no experience whatsoever of the work involved at
A.B. Converters Ltd. They lived outside Blessington. Yet in
considering the applications from the workers concerned it is
clear that the Company totally disregarded the fact that they
all lived in Blessington, and had previous work experience.
This confirms that the Company is in breach of Clause 1 of the
Agreement which stipulated that previous experience was to be
given every consideration. The Union requests the Court to
recommend that the Company is in breach of the Agreement and
that the workers concerned be employed by the Company.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. In February, 1991 the Union contacted the Company
regarding the possibility of jobs for the workers concerned.
Management indicated that they would be in contact with the
individuals concerned and they were subsequently invited to
attend for interview. Interviews were held in accordance with
the Agreement of 19th December, 1990. Every consideration was
given to workers with previous experience. When the Union
wrote to the Company in April, 1991 expressing concern that
none of the ex-employees of the Company were selected,
Management replied and pointed out that by virtue of their
responses at interviews, the workers concerned had either laid
down pre-condition which the Company were unable to meet,
failed to attend, or indicated lack of interest.
2. By accepting the redundancy terms as agreed at the
conciliation conference on 19th December, 1990 the workers
concerned ceased their employment with the Company. The
Agreement committed the Company to consider applicants who had
previous experience with the Company in the event of
vacancies arising. It cannot however be construed as a
commitment to employ those workers. Management honoured both
the spirit and the letter of the Agreement in the best
interests of the Company, and taking into consideration the
responses made at the interviews, decided to appoint to
temporary jobs individuals other than the workers concerned in
this claim.
RECOMMENDATION;
5. The Court has very carefully considered the submissions both
oral and written made by the parties at the hearing in this case.
It has come to the conclusion that particularly in view of the
difference in perception of the circumstances in the firm last
February and March that it must rely for its recommendation on a
strict reading of the terms of the Agreement of 19th December
last. Part 1 of the Agreement is clearly not an undertaking to
re-employ any of the workers involved and in the Court's view the
call to interview was a reasonable interpretation of the Company's
obligation under Part 1.
The reason that none of the workers involved in this case was
re-employed was to a large degree determined by the fact that, on
their own evidence, those who attended for interview indicated
dissatisfaction with one or several aspects of the work on offer.
Furthermore it is clear that the Company was not in a position to
know of the circumstances of the worker who was ill but did not
respond to the call to interview.
The Court regrets that the outcome of the above events appears for
the time being at least to nullify the terms of L.C.R. 13162, but
on the basis of the facts as presented to it the Court accepts
that the Company acted within the terms of the Agreement of 19th
December and it therefore does not recommend concession of the
Union's claim.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
John O'Connell
_______________________
26th November, 1991 Deputy Chairman
T.O'D./J.C.