Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD92128 Case Number: LCR13626 Section / Act: S20(1) Parties: WARD INTERNATIONAL LIMITED - and - NATIONAL ENGINEERING AND ELECTRICAL TRADE UNION |
Dispute concerning the dismissal of two apprentices.
Recommendation:
5. It is a long established tradition in industry generally that
apprentices stand outside the normal relationship of employer and
worker particularly on the question of seniority and redundancy.
The clear understanding by all concerned is that, except in the
most serious circumstances, an apprentice is kept in place until
the period of his apprenticeship has expired at which stage there
is no obligation to continue him/her in employment. The Court is
satisfied that there are very good reasons why this tradition
should be sustained. Whilst the Company's declared policy of
avoiding the redundancy of employees is admirable, it does not
consider that policy can be sustained at the expense of the two
apprentices concerned and therefore recommends that they be
restored to their apprenticeship for the full duration thereof.
Division: Mr O'Connell Mr Brennan Mr Walsh
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD92128 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR13626
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 20(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969
PARTIES: WARD INTERNATIONAL LIMITED
and
NATIONAL ENGINEERING AND ELECTRICAL TRADE UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Dispute concerning the dismissal of two apprentices.
BACKGROUND;
2. The Company manufactures, installs and services rotary
die-cutters and other finishing equipment. It employs sixty
workers in Athlone. In January, 1992 the Company declared two
workers (one electrical and one fitter apprentice) redundant.
They were approximately two and a half years into their
apprenticeship, which is normally a four-year one. In early
February, 1992 the Union contacted the Company and sought a
meeting to discuss the redundancies. Management rejected the
request. The Union sought to refer the issue to the Labour
Relations Commission but the Company objected to such a referral.
On the 17th February, 1992 the Union referred the dispute to the
Labour Court under Section 20(1) of the Industrial Relations Act,
1969 and agreed to be bound by the Court's recommendation. The
Court investigated the dispute in Athlone on the 1st April, 1992.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The normal term of an apprenticeship is four years. At
the end of this time the worker becomes a fully-qualified
tradesman. It is most unusual that a Company such as Ward
International should dismiss the two apprentices before their
apprenticeship was completed. The Union sought and failed to
discuss with Management the dismissal of the two workers. The
workers were Union members and the Union had every right to
represent them and to seek to have the Company decision
rescinded so as to allow the workers to complete their
apprenticeship. Management's only response to the Union was
that the Company decision was irrevocable.
2. The Company proceeded to declare the two apprentices
redundant on the 14th February, 1992. The Union rejected the
Company's action which is in breach of the normal custom and
practice in relation to the training of apprentices. The
Union accepts that when apprentices have completed their
four-year apprenticeship Management has the right to let them
go. It has no right to let the workers go during their
apprenticeship term.
3. The efficiencies sought by the Company could easily have
been obtained by other rationalisation measures. Quite an
amount of work presently being done by other operatives in the
Company could be done by the two apprentices concerned
(details supplied to the Court). The Company has only one
fitter and one electrician who now have a considerably
increased workload to undertake without the assistance of two
apprentices. Routine plant maintenance will suffer as a
result of the dismissal of the two workers. There is more
than enough work for the two apprentices and the Union asks
the Court to reinstate them so as to allow for the completion
of their respective apprenticeships.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Company took a decision to make a small reduction in
its workforce in January, 1992. The decision affected
temporary/part-time employees and the two apprentices
concerned. The Company accepts that the normal apprenticeship
term is four years. However, for economic reasons the Company
could not retain the two workers concerned. The Company has
made every effort to place the two apprentices with other
local firms.
2. The Company rejects the Union's claim to represent the two
workers concerned and therefore refused discussions on the
substantive issue of the redundancies. The apprenticeship
which includes examinations prescribed by F.A.S. is a
four-year training programme. Nowhere in the terms of the
apprenticeship is there an indication of any status as an
employee - rather only a training status. Previous employees
have completed their apprenticeships and have not been
regarded as employees, have not been union members, nor have
they been represented by the Union. This status only changes
when an apprentice, on completion of the apprenticeship, is
offered and accepts regular employment.
3. The collective bargaining agreement (details supplied to
the Court) specifically excludes apprentices from
representation. In the Terms of the Apprenticeship Agreement
it states "this letter is not an offer of employment and is
not to be construed as such. At the conclusion of your
apprenticeship you will sever relations with the Company". It
is clear that apprentices are not and have not been considered
to be employees of the Company. There is no practice or
precedent for Company/Union discussions relative to any issue
concerning apprentices. Management will not concede the
Union's claim to represent the two apprentices concerned.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. It is a long established tradition in industry generally that
apprentices stand outside the normal relationship of employer and
worker particularly on the question of seniority and redundancy.
The clear understanding by all concerned is that, except in the
most serious circumstances, an apprentice is kept in place until
the period of his apprenticeship has expired at which stage there
is no obligation to continue him/her in employment. The Court is
satisfied that there are very good reasons why this tradition
should be sustained. Whilst the Company's declared policy of
avoiding the redundancy of employees is admirable, it does not
consider that policy can be sustained at the expense of the two
apprentices concerned and therefore recommends that they be
restored to their apprenticeship for the full duration thereof.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
John O'Connell
________________________
14th April, 1992. Deputy Chairman
T.O'D./J.C.
Note
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be address to Mr.
Tom O'Dea, Court Secretary.