Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD92453 Case Number: LCR13726 Section / Act: S26(1) Parties: APRICOT LIMITED - and - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION |
Dispute concerning the employment of four casual workers.
Recommendation:
5. The Court has fully considered the views expressed by the
parties in their oral and written submissions.
The Court finds there exists in the Industry accepted practices in
regard to employees and employment. The Court takes the view
these practices should be continued and accordingly recommends
that the Company should in the first instance seek such staff as
may be required from the union list of employees. In the case
before the Court given all of the circumstances the Court does not
consider it unreasonable for the employer to exclude the workers
concerned from employment.
The Court considers the Company and the union should as a matter
of urgency complete a formal agreement on terms and conditions of
employment.
In the interests of developing harmonious relations and as a
gesture of goodwill the Court recommends the Company pay a sum of
#400 to the union for disbursement to the workers concerned on the
understanding that this recommendation is accepted and the issues
in dispute are finally resolved.
The Court so recommends.
Division: MrMcGrath Mr Keogh Mr Rorke
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD92453 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR13726
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990
PARTIES: APRICOT LIMITED
and
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Dispute concerning the employment of four casual workers.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Company was awarded the catering franchise at Leopardstown
Racecourse in April, 1992. It employed the majority of casual
workers employed by the previous franchise holder but refused to
employ four workers who were dismissed by a previous contractor.
The Union claimed that in accordance with custom and practice all
previous employees including the four workers concerned should be
employed. Management rejected the claim. The issue was referred
to the Labour Relations Commission. A conciliation conference was
held on the 23rd July, 1992 but no agreement was reached. The
dispute was referred to the Labour Court by the Labour Relations
Commission on the 27th July, 1992. A Labour Court hearing was
held on the 31st July, 1992. A letter recommendation was issued
on the 31st July, 1992.
UNION'S ARGUMENT:
3. 1. The four workers concerned have been employed by numerous
franchise holders at various locations over the years. It has
always been the custom and practice that casual workers are
employed by various franchise holders at Leopardstown from a
panel of workers provided by the Union. This practice is
widespread in the catering industry. The four workers
concerned are part of this panel and cannot be excluded from
employment by the Company. If the Company finds that the
workers are unsuitable while in its employment, the issue can
be discussed through normal industrial relations procedures.
It cannot refuse to employ the workers because of their
employment records with a previous contractor.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENT:
4. 1. There is no formal agreement between the parties which
obliges new contractors at Leopardstown to employ all or any
employees of former contractors. The catering business is
extremely competitive and the competence, trustworthiness and
professionalism of staff is fundamental to the successful
operation of a catering contract. The Company has the right
to recruit, employ and train its own workers subject to normal
employment legislation. The Company did not employ the four
workers concerned because of their previous employment record.
The Company is willing to conclude a formal agreement with the
Union at an early date.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. The Court has fully considered the views expressed by the
parties in their oral and written submissions.
The Court finds there exists in the Industry accepted practices in
regard to employees and employment. The Court takes the view
these practices should be continued and accordingly recommends
that the Company should in the first instance seek such staff as
may be required from the union list of employees. In the case
before the Court given all of the circumstances the Court does not
consider it unreasonable for the employer to exclude the workers
concerned from employment.
The Court considers the Company and the union should as a matter
of urgency complete a formal agreement on terms and conditions of
employment.
In the interests of developing harmonious relations and as a
gesture of goodwill the Court recommends the Company pay a sum of
#400 to the union for disbursement to the workers concerned on the
understanding that this recommendation is accepted and the issues
in dispute are finally resolved.
The Court so recommends.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Tom McGrath
____________________
13th August, 1992. Deputy Chairman
T.O'D./J.C.
Note
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to
Mr. Tom O'Dea, Court Secretary.