Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD91574 Case Number: AD92148 Section / Act: S13(9) Parties: UNITRODE B.V. - and - 3 WORKERS |
Appeal by the workers against Rights Commissioner's recommendation number BC200/91 concerning alleged unfair treatment.
Recommendation:
5. The Court notes that the Employer undertook at the hearing to
give the three claimants a suitable reference.
The Court is of the view that the Rights Commissioner's
recommendation is reasonable in the circumstances and should be
upheld.
The Court accordingly rejects the appeal and so decides.
Division: Ms Owens Mr Keogh Mr Rorke
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD91574 APPEAL DECISION NO. AD14892
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 13(9), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969
PARTIES: UNITRODE B.V.
and
3 WORKERS
SUBJECT:
1. Appeal by the workers against Rights Commissioner's
recommendation number BC200/91 concerning alleged unfair
treatment.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Company is involved in the manufacture of high reliability
electronic componements for use primarily, in space and military
applications. As a result of a fall-off in spending on military
and space related projects worldwide, the number of employees has
decreased from 400 in 1985 to 78 in 1992. The 3 workers concerned
were employed on the weekend shift working 16 hours per week. In
February, 1991 they were made redundant because the Company
terminated the weekend shift. They received redundancy payments
and were assured verbally that if the weekend shift restarted they
would be reinstated. The weekend shift was re-introduced in May,
1991 but the workers were not reinstated. The workers claim that
their redundancies were unnecessary and that they were treated
unjustly and unfairly by the Company. The Company rejected the
claim and the workers referred the matter to a Rights Commissioner
for investigation and recommendation. The Rights Commissioner
investigated the matter on 17th September, 1991 and recommended as
follows:-
"In the light of the above I uphold the claim by the
claimants and I recommend as follows:-
Unitrode BV should pay to each of the three named claimants
the sum of £500 each in compensation for the losses incurred
by the three claimants through the failure on the Company's
part to honour the undertaking given. I further recommend
that should any of the three claimants not receive a recall
to work by the end of October then this sum of £500 be
increased by a further £250 in each particular case.
Following the Rights Commissioner's investigation of the matter
one of the workers concerned was re-employed in September/October,
1991 for a period of five weeks.
The Rights Commissioner's recommendation was rejected by the
workers who appealed it to the Labour Court on 2nd November, 1991
under Section 13(9) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969. The
Court heard the appeal on 3rd March, 1992.
WORKER'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The redundancies were unnecessary and unfair. The
workers concerned were replaced by workers who were hand
picked by the Company for whatever reasons. Two of these
workers had received substantial voluntary redundancy payments
the previous year.
2. The Company claims that specific workers were brought
back to do specific jobs, but some of these workers needed to
be trained to do the jobs the workers here concerned occupied
before their employment was terminated.
3. The workers concerned were invited to apply for
full-time positions. One of the workers applied but was not
appointed because the Company appointed a worker who has less
service than she had.
4. One of the workers concerned worked a weekend evening
shift with two other workers. She was the only worker of the
three not re-employed.
5. The Company has refused to give the workers a reference.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. When weekend working was re-introduced in May, 1991
workers were re-employed on the basis of previous training and
skills relevant to what was required for the weekend
operation.
2. All lay-offs were carried out in accordance with the
relevant legislation. All workers were paid redundancy
payments of four weeks' pay per year of service.
4. 3. Due to a continuing decline in business, most of the
workers re-employed in May 1991 have been "laid-off" as part
of the lay-off announced in January, 1992.
DECISION:
5. The Court notes that the Employer undertook at the hearing to
give the three claimants a suitable reference.
The Court is of the view that the Rights Commissioner's
recommendation is reasonable in the circumstances and should be
upheld.
The Court accordingly rejects the appeal and so decides.
~
Signed on behalf of the labour Court
Evelyn Owens
-----------------------
8th April, 1992
F.B/U.S. Deputy Chairman