Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD92406 Case Number: LCR13711 Section / Act: S26(1) Parties: COILLTE TEO - and - SIPTU |
Dispute concerning the proposed temporary lay-off of 156 forestry workers.
Recommendation:
The Court having considered the written submissions of the
parties, togethere with arguments made during the hearing, is of
the opinion that the present dispute will require time and
patience to conclude.
Given the financial constraints of the Company it is clear that
higher borrowings to keep employees at work, would be
self-defeating and directly in conflict with the long term
objectives of the parties.
It is the Court's view that the P.E.S.P. does not prohibit the
Company from seeking to introduce short-time working.
The Court therefore, urges the parties to continue their dialogue
which is intended to address the problem of labour unit cost and
create more secure employment, without the need to interrupt the
cycle by short-time working.
The Court is of the view that the current proposed compulsory lay
off could adversely affect the ongoing dialogue and recommends
that management postpone implementation for one month pending full
discussions on any alternative and also that management accept
that the need for temporary lay-off be addressed in the first
instance by way of volunteers and only resort to involuntary
nominations if numbers do not match up to the requirement.
Further the Court recommends that management and workers through
their representatives review the situation on a monthly basis.
The Court notes that six months is the maximum of any employees
exposure to this lay-off. As a final incentive to voluntary
lay-off the Court recommends that the proposed payment of #120 be
increased to #140.
The Court so recommends.
Division: Ms Owens Mr Keogh Ms Ni Mhurchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD92406 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR13711
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990
COILLTE TEORANTA
AND
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Dispute concerning the proposed temporary lay-off of 156
forestry workers.
BACKGROUND:
The Company was established in 1989 to take over the running of
State forestry on a commercial basis. It has a workforce of just
over 1,700 of whom approximately 1,080 are forest workers. After
the Company was established it implemented a major restructuring
programme which included voluntary redundancies. Since 1991 the
timber industry has experienced a decline which has had a major
negative impact on the Company's revenue. In 1992, the Company
proposed to lay-off 156 workers for a temporary period with effect
from the 8th June, 1992. Most of the proposed lay-offs are in the
West of Ireland where the Company claims their is no productive
work available at present. The union rejected the proposal. No
agreement was reached at local level discussions and the matter
was referred on 16th June, 1992 to the Labour Relations
Commission. Conciliation conferences were held on 23rd June, 1992
and 7th July, 1992 at which the Company offered a voluntary
lay-off compensation package. Under the terms of the package
laid-off workers would receive a payment of #120, an interest-free
loan would be available, and there would be a guarantee that
contractors would not be engaged to perform work normally done by
laid-off staff. The package was not accepted by the Union which
is opposed to the Company's lay-off proposal. The Company claims
that it is entitled to implement compulsory lay-offs on a
temporary basis. The union rejects the claim. The dispute was
referred to the Labour Court on 10th July, 1992 in accordance with
Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. The Court
investigated the dispute on 16th July, 1992. The Company deferred
implementation of its lay-off proposals pending the issue of a
recommendation. The Court issued a recommendation by letter dated
21st July, 1992.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The imposition of involuntary lay-off is effectively in
breach of appendix B of the P.E.S.P. The Company is in the
transition stage from the public to the private sector and
could not be classified as a standard commercial
State-sponsored body. The Company carried obligations from
the time it operated in the public sector and still provides
some services on a social rather than commercial basis.
2. The proposed lay-offs are not based on operational
requirements as there is work which could be done. The
lay-offs are motivated by financial problems within the
Company caused mainly by its inability to reduce the number
of clerical and administrative staff. If the Company reduced
its overhead costs it could allocate adequate resources to
its operational requirements.
3. Involuntary lay-off was never a feature of the work
pattern of forest workers. However the Company appears to be
starting a trend of lay-offs which could occur on a cyclical
basis. The Union is opposed to such a trend which causes
uncertainty regarding full-time employment throughout the
year for the workers and creates a climate of compulsory
redundancy.
4. The Union has acknowledged for some time the need for
change in the Company. The workers have shown a willingness
to change work practices and co-operate in securing the
Company's future. They are being treated unfairly by the
Company. The Company's propsals are not valid and should be
withdrawn in order that realistic negotiations on necessary
change may proceed to the mutual benefit of the Company and
the workers.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. Appendix B of P.E.S.P. refers to areas in the public
service where staff are surplus to operational requirements.
The term "public service" does not include the commercial
State-sponsored body with a mandate to operate State forestry
on a commercial basis. Appendix B of the P.E.S.P. does not
therefore relate to the Company.
2. Since 1991 the timber industry has gone into recession.
This has resulted in a decline in revenue for the Company.
In 1991 total revenue was nearly #70 million. The Company
has carried out a restructuring programme since its
establishment and must continue to reduce costs in all areas
where possible.
3. It has always been the case that the employment of
forest workers depends on the availability of work. Where
productive work is not available the Company must have the
right lay-off workers. The present lack of production work
is due mainly to the recession in the timber industry and the
decline in the traditional pattern of acquisition in the West
of Ireland.
4. The Company has offered a reasonable compensation
package. Its current financial situation would inhibit
further improvement. The Company envisages a temporary
lay-off period of no more than 6 months, followed by the
re-employment of the workers when the period of lay-off is
completed. Lay-offs will only be effected where productive
work is not available and the workers will continue to be
permanent employees of the Company. The Company's proposals
are reasonable and should be accepted by the workers.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court having considered the written submissions of the
parties, togethere with arguments made during the hearing, is of
the opinion that the present dispute will require time and
patience to conclude.
Given the financial constraints of the Company it is clear that
higher borrowings to keep employees at work, would be
self-defeating and directly in conflict with the long term
objectives of the parties.
It is the Court's view that the P.E.S.P. does not prohibit the
Company from seeking to introduce short-time working.
The Court therefore, urges the parties to continue their dialogue
which is intended to address the problem of labour unit cost and
create more secure employment, without the need to interrupt the
cycle by short-time working.
The Court is of the view that the current proposed compulsory lay
off could adversely affect the ongoing dialogue and recommends
that management postpone implementation for one month pending full
discussions on any alternative and also that management accept
that the need for temporary lay-off be addressed in the first
instance by way of volunteers and only resort to involuntary
nominations if numbers do not match up to the requirement.
Further the Court recommends that management and workers through
their representatives review the situation on a monthly basis.
The Court notes that six months is the maximum of any employees
exposure to this lay-off. As a final incentive to voluntary
lay-off the Court recommends that the proposed payment of #120 be
increased to #140.
The Court so recommends.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
21st July, 1992 Evelyn Owens
A.S./M.H. ---------------------------------
Deputy Chairman.
Note
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to
Mr. Alfie Smith, Court Secretary.