Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD92263 Case Number: LCR13700 Section / Act: S26(1) Parties: MEADOW MEATS LIMITED - and - AMALGAMATED TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION |
Dispute concerning the non-employment by the Company of workers displaced by a previous employer.
Recommendation:
5. In considering this dispute the Court wishes to state in the
first instance that it recognises the Company's right to decide
who it should employ. The Court notes that the Company/Union
House agreement also recognises this right.
Taking into account the background to the events which gave rise
to the dispute the Court considers that it is reasonable that the
former employees in question (now five) should be given further
consideration of employment and accordingly the Court recommends
that they be called for further interview when vacancies next
occur.
Division: Ms Owens Mr Keogh Ms Ni Mhurchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD92263 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR13700
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990
PARTIES: MEADOW MEATS LIMITED
and
AMALGAMATED TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Dispute concerning the non-employment by the Company of
workers displaced by a previous employer.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Company is part of the Kerry group which bought out the
former Tunney Meat Packers after that Company was liquidated in
1991. Over 100 workers were displaced in the liquidation. The
Company immediately set about the re-commissioning of the plant
and the recruitment of a workforce. The positions were advertised
and the Company operated normal application procedures i.e.
completion of application forms, interview, medical etc. The
Company offered jobs to more than 90% of the previous workforce.
The Union claims that all of the previous workforce should be
offered re-employment. The Company rejects the claim. No
agreement could be reached at local level discussions and the
matter was referred on 20th December, 1991 to the Labour Relations
Commission. A conciliation conference was held on 5th March, 1992
at which no agreement was reached and the matter was referred on
28th April, 1992 to the Labour Court under Section 26(1) of the
Industrial Relations Act, 1990. The Court investigated the
dispute in Cavan on 24th June, 1992.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The former employer recommended the workforce for
re-employment with the new employer. The displaced workers
have been badly treated by the Company and should be offered
employment as positions become available. There are now 5
workers who were displaced and are seeking employment with the
Company.
2. The workers concerned have a first class employment record
and there is no justifiable reason why the Company has not
offered them employment. The Company has failed to give any
reason why the workers are not considered suitable. The
Company has given preference in some instances to workers with
less experience in the industry.
3. The Union is not challenging the Company's right to decide
in relation to job offers and is not seeking to establish a
precedent in this case. In the interests of natural justice
and good industrial relations the Company should re-consider
its decision not to offer employment to the 5 workers
concerned.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. As a gesture of goodwill the Company has gone through the
normal industrial relations procedures although this case is
not between and employer and its employees. The workers
concerned are not and have not been employees of the Company.
2. In advance of recruitment of a workforce the Company
advertised positions publicly and contacted all displaced
staff in writing to ensure that each person had an opportunity
of interview to ascertain their interest in and suitability
for positions which were available. The Company also
recognised the Union and agreed a comprehensive house
agreement. Following the interviews the Company employed more
than 90% of the previous workforce. It would not be
appropriate for the Company to explain to the unsuccessful
applicants why they were not successful.
3. The house agreement provides that the Company has the sole
right to select workers for employment. The Company employs
very professional standards in relation to recruitment and
cannot afford to have its right to make decisions in relation
to employment compromised. The fundamental right of the
Company should be upheld.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. In considering this dispute the Court wishes to state in the
first instance that it recognises the Company's right to decide
who it should employ. The Court notes that the Company/Union
House agreement also recognises this right.
Taking into account the background to the events which gave rise
to the dispute the Court considers that it is reasonable that the
former employees in question (now five) should be given further
consideration of employment and accordingly the Court recommends
that they be called for further interview when vacancies next
occur.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Evelyn Owens
____________________
3rd July, 1992. Deputy Chairman
A.S./J.C.
Note
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to
Mr. Alfie Smith, Court Secretary.