Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD92278 Case Number: LCR13696 Section / Act: S26(1) Parties: PROFESSIONAL CONTRACT CLEANERS - and - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION |
Dispute concerning the non-employment by the Company of workers who became unemployed as a result of the change of contractor at the Saint James's Hospital site.
Recommendation:
The Court having considered the submissions from the parties is
of the view that the claimants should be further considered for
employment by Professional Contract Cleaners in St. James's
Hospital. Noting that there are no vacancies at present the
Court therefore recommends that they be offered employment on
the basis of previous length of service with Professional
Contract Cleaners as vacancies arise on the site.
The Court wishes to re-iterate the view expressed in LCR13394
with regard to continuity of employment and again urges the
parties to expedite discussions and agreement on this matter.
Division: Ms Owens Mr Brennan Mr Rorke
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD92278 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR13696
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 26(1) INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT 1990
PARTIES: PROFESSIONAL CONTRACT CLEANERS
(Represented by the Federation of Irish Employers)
and
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Dispute concerning the non-employment by the Company of
workers who became unemployed as a result of the change of
contractor at the Saint James's Hospital site.
BACKGROUND:
2. 1. The Company is engaged in the provision of cleaning
services. Conditions of employment and minimum rates of
remuneration for the contract cleaning industry are
formulated at Joint Labour Committee (J.L.C.) level and
fixed by Employment Regulation Orders (E.R.O.). Section VI
(continuity of employment) of the E.R.O. dated 31st May,
1989 states as follows:-
"Employers in the industry will give full consideration
to the position of workers who are unemployed as a
result of a change of contractor on a site."
2. In recent years the Company has had an involvement in
the provision of cleaning services at St. James's Hospital.
In 1992 the Company secured the contract for the cleaning
of the entire hospital. Workers employed by another
contractor were displaced. The Union claims that nine
named workers who were displaced were not given full
consideration for re-employment by the Company as provided
for in the E.R.O.. The Company claims that it has fully
discharged its responsibilities under the E.R.O..
3. No agreement could be reached at local level
discussion and the matter was referred on 5th February,
1992 to the Labour Relations Commission. A conciliation
conference was held on 30th March, 1992 at which no
agreement was reached. On 11th May, 1992 the matter was
referred to the Labour Court in accordance with Section
26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. The Court
investigated the dispute on 15th June, 1992.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The nine workers concerned were employees of an
outgoing contractor and had been working on the site for a
number of years with a number of contractors. All of these
workers were previously employed by the Company. There
were a number of phases in the transition of the total
contract to the Company when these workers could have been
offered employment. The Company failed to give them full
consideration for the vacancies and has offered no
explanation as to why these nine workers are not deemed
suitable for employment with the Company.
2. The Company has failed to comply with Section VI of
the E.R.O. in the matter of full consideration on
changeover of contract. The Company filled vacancies with
less experienced staff and failed to interview two of the
nine workers concerned.
3. The nine workers concerned have been blatantly
discriminated against by the Company and have suffered
grave financial loss as a result. As the Company has not
complied with Section VI of the E.R.O. the workers should
be compensated, either by way of the offer of a job or by
way of financial compensation.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The E.R.O. obliges employers to give "full
consideration" to those employees who have been displaced
as a consequence of a change of contractor. "Full
consideration" means that employers are obliged to afford
displaced staff the opportunity to attend for interview.
The decision to offer employment rests solely with the
incoming employer.
2. The primary obligation to provide employment for the
displaced staff is with the outgoing contractor. The
outgoing contractor should either source alternative
employment for its staff or make them redundant. The
Company sees its primary obligation to its own staff and
not to staff of other contracting companies who have been
displaced.
3. The Company initiated contact with the Union to
encourage staff to apply for vacancies. Interviews were
held and a large number of vacancies were filled by
displaced staff. The workers were given full consideration
and the Company appointed the most suitable workers. The
Company has complied with Section VI of the E.R.O. and has
acted fairly and reasonably in this matter at all times.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court having considered the submissions from the parties is
of the view that the claimants should be further considered for
employment by Professional Contract Cleaners in St. James's
Hospital. Noting that there are no vacancies at present the
Court therefore recommends that they be offered employment on
the basis of previous length of service with Professional
Contract Cleaners as vacancies arise on the site.
The Court wishes to re-iterate the view expressed in LCR13394
with regard to continuity of employment and again urges the
parties to expedite discussions and agreement on this matter.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
29th June, 1992 Evelyn Owens
________________ ________________________
A.S./M.H. Deputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to
Mr. Alfie Smith, Court Secretary.