Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD91346 Case Number: LCR13445 Section / Act: S20(1) Parties: J. HARRIS ASSEMBLERS - and - A WORKER;CLLR. SEAN RYAN T.D. |
Claim by a worker that he was unfairly selected by the Company for lay-off.
Recommendation:
5. The Court has fully considered all of the issues raised by
both parties in this case.
The Court finds great sympathy with the situation in which the
claimant finds himself. However, the Company are unable to
provide for the employment of the complainant or others given the
circumstances of the industry and the Court does not see this
situation changing in the near future.
If such an upturn in business does occur the Court would recommend
that the claimant be sympathetically considered for early
reinstatement.
The Court does however find, given that the Company are convinced
there will be no upturn in business in the foreseeable short term,
that to continue the workers on lay-off without fully discussing
with them formally at reasonable intervals their prospects of
employment and the options available to them, is unacceptable.
The Court considers this should be done formally immediately.
The Court so recommends.
Division: MrMcGrath Mr Collins Mr Rorke
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD91346 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR13445
THE LABOUR COURT
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 20(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT 1969
PARTIES: J. HARRIS ASSEMBLERS
(Represented by P.D. GARDINER & CO. SOLICITORS)
AND
A WORKER
(REPRESENTED BY CLLR. SEAN RYAN T.D.)
SUBJECT:
1. Claim by a worker that he was unfairly selected by the
Company for lay-off.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Company assembles trucks and buses. In 1978, the worker
commenced employment with the Company as a general operative. In
1981 he became an assembler and worked mainly on stage one of the
vehicle assembly line i.e. assembling the wheels and chassis. In
June, 1990 he was a member of a team of three assemblers working
on stage one. Two of the team (including the worker concerned)
were then laid off. In September, 1990 the worker was re-employed
for two weeks and was laid off again along with eleven other
workers. The worker subsequently requested re-employment with the
Company in January, April and May, 1991 but was informed that
there was no work available for him. The worker claims that he
was unfairly selected for lay-off. The Company rejects the claim.
The worker referred the dispute to the Labour Court under Section
20(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969. A Labour Court
hearing took place on 11th September, 1991. Prior to the hearing
the worker agreed to be bound by the recommendation of the Court.
WORKER'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. When the worker was laid-off in June, 1990 he was told
that he would be re-employed as soon as work became
available. Other workers who were laid-off after him were
taken back before the worker was re-employed for two weeks in
September, 1990. When the worker was laid-off for the second
time he was again told that when work became available he
would be taken back. However, as on the previous occasion
other workers with less service were re-instated before him.
The worker was unfairly treated in relation to re-employment
after lay-off.
2. The worker is aware that during his period of lay-off
work became available in his former position on stage one of
the assembly line. The Company had an opportunity to offer
some employment to the worker. It should have made some
effort to facilitate him when suitable work became available.
3. The worker has an excellent conduct and work record. He
was unfairly selected for lay-off and the duration of the
current lay-off is putting him in an intolerable situation.
The Company should not prolong the lay-off period and should
treat the worker fairly by re-instating him.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. Due to a fall off in product demand the Company was
forced to lay-off staff in September, 1990. The worker
concerned was laid-off at that time. For economic reasons it
has not been possible to offer him re-employment. If the
economic situation improves and work becomes available for
the claimant the Company will offer him employment.
2. The seniority rule does not exist as there is no custom
within the assembly industry that would require the Company
to operate a "last in first out" system. It is the
prerogative of the Company to decide what workers should be
laid-off or re-employed. In this case the Company does not
have any suitable position at present which it could offer to
the particular worker.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. The Court has fully considered all of the issues raised by
both parties in this case.
The Court finds great sympathy with the situation in which the
claimant finds himself. However, the Company are unable to
provide for the employment of the complainant or others given the
circumstances of the industry and the Court does not see this
situation changing in the near future.
If such an upturn in business does occur the Court would recommend
that the claimant be sympathetically considered for early
reinstatement.
The Court does however find, given that the Company are convinced
there will be no upturn in business in the foreseeable short term,
that to continue the workers on lay-off without fully discussing
with them formally at reasonable intervals their prospects of
employment and the options available to them, is unacceptable.
The Court considers this should be done formally immediately.
The Court so recommends.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Tom McGrath
____________________
17th October, 1991
A.S. / M.O'C. Deputy Chairman