Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD92177 Case Number: LCR13687 Section / Act: S26(1) Parties: BORD NA MONA - and - AMALGAMATED TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS UNION |
Dispute concerning the guarantee of seasonal work.
Recommendation:
5. The Court, having considered the views expressed by the
parties in their oral and written submissions, recommends that the
two weeks be paid in respect of the 1991 season and that the
Company proposals be implemented in respect of subsequent years.
It is clear to the Court that the seasonal employment with the
Company and eligibility to Social Welfare payments have been
inextricably linked.
With regard to the anomalies referred to in respect of Social
Welfare payments the Court would suggest that the parties consider
what representations could best be made which would resolve these.
Division: MrMcGrath Mr Keogh Mr Walsh
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD92177 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR13687
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS RELATIONS ACT, 1990
PARTIES: BORD NA MONA
and
AMALGAMATED TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Dispute concerning the guarantee of seasonal work.
BACKGROUND:
2. The dispute concerns approximately 17 seasonal workers who are
employed at the Oweninny Works in County Mayo during the peat
harvesting season. In 1989 the Bord and the Unions reached
agreement on new production systems and in return seasonal workers
were guaranteed a minimum 13 weeks' employment of 18 hours per
week. In 1990 agreement was reached at the Oweninny Works that
seasonal workers would complete the 13 weeks before the 1st
September. It was honoured in 1990. In 1991 due to poor weather
conditions the workers did not complete the 13 weeks until mid
September and subsequently lost some Social Welfare entitlements.
Management also sought to change the agreement of 1990. It
proposed that the 13 weeks would be completed by the 30th
September of each year and workers would be notified at the
beginning of July each year of the date by which the 13 week
guarantee would be achieved. The Union rejected Management's
proposal, claiming that the 1990 agreement should be maintained.
The Union also claimed compensation for the two weeks lost during
the 1991 season. The issue was referred to the Labour Relations
Commission on the 23rd July, 1991. A conciliation conference was
held on the 8th November, 1991 but no agreement was reached. The
dispute was referred to the Labour Court by the Labour Relations
Commission on the 13th March, 1992. The Court investigated the
dispute on the 5th June, 1992.
UNION'S ARGUMENT:
3. 1. It is essential that the 1990 agreement be adhered to by
the Bord, otherwise the workers concerned will suffer a
substantial loss in their earnings. The agreement was
negotiated between the parties in conjunction with the
Department of Social Welfare and enabled the workers to claim
Social Welfare Benefits providing that the 13 weeks were
completed by the 1st September of each year. The Company's
proposal to change the agreement is not acceptable to the
Union. The Union is seeking compensation for the workers in
respect of the two weeks lost in September, 1991.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The purpose of the 1989 agreement on flexibility is to
keep operating costs in line with production which is totally
weather dependant. It is not feasible for the Bord to
continue employing large numbers of seasonal workers during
periods of non production. The maintenance of the 1990
agreement would defeat the purpose of the overall agreement on
seasonal employment.
2. The peat energy division employs approximately 600
seasonal workers at five locations. Concession of this claim
is likely to have a knock-on effect with repercussive claims
at other locations.
3. While it was possible to guarantee the 13 weeks before 1st
September, 1990 the experience of 1991 clearly demonstrates
that it is not feasible to use this date definitively for
future years.
4. The Bord never made an agreement with the Department of
Social Welfare in relation to the workers concerned completing
the 13 weeks by 1st September in order to receive Social
Welfare benefits. The reason that the workers are now losing
certain benefits is solely due to a change in Department of
Social Welfare regulations in relation to claiming benefit.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. The Court, having considered the views expressed by the
parties in their oral and written submissions, recommends that the
two weeks be paid in respect of the 1991 season and that the
Company proposals be implemented in respect of subsequent years.
It is clear to the Court that the seasonal employment with the
Company and eligibility to Social Welfare payments have been
inextricably linked.
With regard to the anomalies referred to in respect of Social
Welfare payments the Court would suggest that the parties consider
what representations could best be made which would resolve these.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
_____________________
Tom McGrath
17th August, 1992. Deputy Chairman
T.O'D./J.C.
Note
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to
Mr. Tom O'Dea, Court Secretary.