Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD91291 Case Number: LCR13395 Section / Act: S26(1) Parties: PROFESSIONAL CONTRACT CLEANERS LIMITED - and - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION |
Dispute concerning the non employment of workers.
Recommendation:
5. Having regard to the history of this contract, i.e. the
frequency with which it changed hands, the need for improved
quality of service, the fact that all but one of the replacement
employees had previously worked for the employer company and were
still on its books, the Court does not consider that the ratio of
new staff to former International Contract Cleaners staff employed
on the contract was unreasonable in the context of R.E.A.
governing the industry.
However, the Court recommends that, in the discussions between the
Company and the Union which the Court proposed in LCR13394 of 30th
August, 1991, the question of the company giving consideration to
the displaced workers who are still unemployed when new contracts
arise or where vacancies occur, should be examined.
Division: CHAIRMAN Mr McHenry Mr Rorke
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD91291 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR13395
THE LABOUR COURT
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 26(1) INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990
PARTIES: PROFESSIONAL CONTRACT CLEANERS LIMITED
(Represented by the Federation of Irish Employers)
and
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Dispute concerning the non employment of workers.
BACKGROUND:
2. 1. The Company is engaged in the contract cleaning industry
and employs 700 workers in the Dublin area. The Company commenced
a contract to provide cleaning services at the Department of the
Marine in February, 1991. At that time there were 14 workers
employed by the previous contractor who had become displaced as a
result of the contract being awarded to the Company. The Company,
after interviews, employed 7 of the displaced workers and offered
6 other workers employment on the site.
2. The Union contends that custom and practice throughout the
Industry demands that the Company find work for the remaining
workers, either on the "Department of the Marine" site or
elsewhere in the Company's operations. The Company contends that
no such custom and practice exists and no employer can be forced
to take on workers. The Company argued that it had fully
discharged its responsibilities under the Registered Employment
Agreement. In the Registered Agreement which followed the
settlement of the threatened Contract Cleaners' dispute of
January, 1990, Section VI (continuity of employment) provides as
follows:-
"Employers in the industry will give full consideration to
the position of workers who are unemployed as a result of a
change of contractor on a site.:
3. The dispute was the subject of a conciliation conference on
13th May, 1991. The matter could not be resolved and it was
referred to the Labour Court on 4th June, 1991. A Labour Court
investigation took place on 9th July, 1991.
UNION ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The contract cleaning industry is characterised by
intense competition amongst a large number of firms.
Contracts are awarded on an annual basis after a system of
tendering, which frequently leads to workers being displaced
through circumstances outside of their control. It is an
established practice within the industry for workers who are
displaced on their employer losing a contract, to be
re-engaged by the successful contractor.
2. In 1988 the question of principle involved in this case
was referred to the Court. The Court issued Recommendation
No. LCR12005 in which it stated
"Having regard to the nature of the Industry, the Court
considers that guaranteed continuity of employment on a
particular site is an unattainable, though desirable,
objective. The Court does not therefore recommend
concession of this claim but does recommend that where
a new Contractor takes over a site, full consideration
should be given to those workers who are unemployed as
a result of the change."
Subsequently the provision was incorporated in the Registered
Employment Agreement. The Court stated that continuity of
employment was "unattainable though desirable". The practice
on the ground has established that the aspiration is
attainable and has the effect of preserving some form of
continuity of employment.
3. The provision of the Registered Agreement stated that
"full consideration" must be given to workers who have been
displaced. The Company has refused to state it's reasons as
to why the displaced workers were found unsuitable. The Union
has at all times made it clear to the Company that it accepted
the Company's right to interview and it accepted the right of
the Company to employ for a probationary period, to determine
suitability. It has refused to reconsider its position. The
Company has argued that the newly recruited workers to the
"site" were already employees of the Company. Union
investigations have found this to be untrue (details
supplied).
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Company have fully observed their obligations under
the section "continuity of employment" in the Registered
Employment Agreement. The Union claim seeks to negate the
employer's freedom to contract with staff of it's choice. The
claim seeks to confer permanent status to workers on a
particular site, thereby, disregarding the fact that this is a
contract industry based on the principles of competitive
tendering.
4. 2. The Registered Employment Agreement states that the
"employers" will give full consideration to displaced workers.
The onus therefore rests with both employers. Full
consideration was given to the displaced workers and all were
interviewed. The Company recruited 7 and 6 Company workers
(details supplied) were offered employment on the site. The
Company's first obligation is to its own workers. One unusual
feature in taking over this contract was that the client
requested the Company to carry out a significant amount of
cleaning work over the weekend (at considerable cost) before
the contract was due to commence.
3. The Union state that it is the practice in the industry
for a new contractor to retain all of the displaced workers on
the site. A number of employers have been consulted (details
supplied) and they confirm that their primary obligation is to
their own staff. People who apply for work will be considered
but the final decision on the composition of the workforce
must rest solely with the new contractor. Any deviation from
this principle will have implications throughout the contract
cleaning industry and ramifications in other contracting
industries.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. Having regard to the history of this contract, i.e. the
frequency with which it changed hands, the need for improved
quality of service, the fact that all but one of the replacement
employees had previously worked for the employer company and were
still on its books, the Court does not consider that the ratio of
new staff to former International Contract Cleaners staff employed
on the contract was unreasonable in the context of R.E.A.
governing the industry.
However, the Court recommends that, in the discussions between the
Company and the Union which the Court proposed in LCR13394 of 30th
August, 1991, the question of the company giving consideration to
the displaced workers who are still unemployed when new contracts
arise or where vacancies occur, should be examined.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
2nd September, 1991 Kevin Heffernan
J.F./U.S. _______________
Chairman