Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD92599 Case Number: LCR13878 Section / Act: S26(1) Parties: PENNEY'S - and - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION |
A dispute concerning compensation to 9 workers arising from a period of lay-off.
Recommendation:
The Court has considered the views of the parties as expressed in
their oral and written submissions.
Whilst it is the view of the Court that the employees might have
been advised of the proposed lay-offs at an earlier date, the
Court does not find grounds for the payment of compensation for
the period of the lay-off.
Accordingly, the Court rejects the claim of the Union.
Division: MrMcGrath Mr Brennan Mr Rorke
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD92599 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR13878
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 26(1) INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990
PARTIES: PENNEY'S
(Represented by the Federation of Irish Employers)
AND
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
SUBJECT:
1. A dispute concerning compensation to 9 workers arising from a
period of lay-off.
BACKGROUND:
2. 1. On the 3rd January, 1992, Penney's announced that it had
reached agreement with British Home Stores (BHS) to purchase
the store as a going concern. A number of meetings followed
with the unions representing workers in the old BHS store
regarding lay-offs and the assimilation of staff to Penneys.
2. On the 20th March, 1992, the Company informed the
workers that the store would be closing for approximately 4
months to allow renovations to take place and they would be
laid-off for this period. The Union requested that their
members be re-deployed to other stores. The Company were
unable to redeploy the workers and they were laid-off from
the 27th March, 1992 to the 5th August, 1992 and 10th
September, 1992.
3. The dispute was referred to the Labour Relations
Commission on the 31st March, 1992 and a conciliation
conference was held on the 8th June, 1992 but no agreement
was reached. The issue was referred to the Labour Court by
the Labour Relations Commission on the 28th September, 1992.
The Court investigated the matter on the 5th November, 1992.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The workers co-operated fully with the take-over. Prior
to 20th March, 1992 the Union or workers had not been advised
of any lay-offs.
2. Lay-offs took place one week after their announcement
for the purpose of allowing renovations to take place.
3. The workers suffered financial hardship due to loss of
earnings and not being able to meet financial commitments
which were entered into on the basis of their earnings.
4. The workers were willing to work in any Penneys store to
alleviate the hardship, but the Company made no effort to
facilitate them.
5. The workers did not find the Company's offer of a loan
acceptable because repayment by deduction would reduce their
take home pay when they returned to work.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. Compensation for loss of earnings incurred during a
lay-off period is not an established practice in this
country. Previous claims for compensation during a lay-off
period have been rejected by the Labour Court.
2. The BHS trading experience in Dublin was an unhappy one.
Had Penneys not purchased the store as a going concern, then
the claim before the Court could have been quite different.
3. The Court should not consider this claim in isolation.
The consequential cost of conceding the claim to the
workers are considereable.
The agreement with the major Union in the Company
(IDATU), and the Company's approach to the question of
assimilation was guided by the Union's response to the
lay-off issue.
4. The terms currently available to the workers are in line
with the terms which were agreed by IDATU. While it would be
unreasonable for the Company to offer less, it is
unreasonable for the Union to claim payments in excess of
what has already been agreed to by the major union involved.
5. The refurbishment was essential to ensure a successful
future for the new store. It was not an option to continue
to trade fully while the refurbishment was ongoing.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court has considered the views of the parties as expressed in
their oral and written submissions.
Whilst it is the view of the Court that the employees might have
been advised of the proposed lay-offs at an earlier date, the
Court does not find grounds for the payment of compensation for
the period of the lay-off.
Accordingly, the Court rejects the claim of the Union.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
30th November, 1992 Tom McGrath
P.O.C./M.H. ______________________________________
Deputy Chairman.
Note
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to
Mr. Paul O'Connor, Court Secretary.