Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD92555 Case Number: LCR13793 Section / Act: S26(1) Parties: GALWAY SALTHILL FAILTE LIMITED - and - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION |
A dispute concerning the lay-off of 8 workers while renovation work is being carried out at the Leisureland complex.
Recommendation:
5. The Court has considered the submissions made by the parties.
The Court is satisfied that there are no funds available to
provide additional monies to the staff during the period of
lay-off nor is redeployment an option open to the Company.
In the circumstances therefore the Court does not recommend
concession of the Union's claim in this respect. It does
recommend however that the Company agree to grant for the purpose
of calculating holiday entitlement next year each week of non
employment suffered during the period of lay-off. It should also
in consultation with staff make arrangements that during the
lay-off period such additional training as staff may require to
carry out the full potential range of their tasks be provided in
conjunction with F.A.S.
Finally the Company should endeavour as soon as possible to
provide the Union with firm and definite details of the staffing
levels necessary for the restructured complex.
Division: Mr O'Connell Mr McHenry Mr Walsh
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD92555 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR13793
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990
PARTIES: GALWAY SALTHILL FAILTE LIMITED
(REPRESENTED BY THE FEDERATION OF IRISH EMPLOYERS)
and
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
SUBJECT:
1. A dispute concerning the lay-off of 8 workers while renovation
work is being carried out at the Leisureland complex.
BACKGROUND:
2. 1. The Leisureland complex was opened in Salthill, Galway in
1973. There are 11 full time workers of whom 8 are
represented by the Union. The complex was taken over by
Galway Corporation in 1976 and annual losses (details
supplied) have been funded from Galway Corporation funds. The
workers are employed by Galway Salthill Failte Limited which
operates the complex on behalf of the Corporation.
2. In 1991, a refurbishment plan was drawn up for the complex
which had been deteriorating in recent years. The plan
required funding of #4.2m. To date funding of #2.6m has been
secured from the Department of Education, Bord Failte and the
Corporation. It is hoped that the residue funding required of
#1.6m will be secured from Bord Failte. The Corporation has
stated that a condition of the funding is that it is spent on
capital works only.
3. The complex is to close down for between 8 and 12 months.
The 11 workers are to be laid off as no alternative employment
is available. The Company will have no income for the
duration of the shut-down. The Union sought that the Company
top up the workers' social welfare entitlements and that the
workers be credited and paid accrued holiday entitlements
during lay-off. The Company rejected the claim and refused to
guarantee that the workers would be re-employed in the
positions they currently hold.
4. No basis for a resolution of the claim was achieved by
local negotiations and it was referred to the Labour Relations
Commission. A conciliation conference was held on 7th
September, 1992 but no progress was possible. The claim was
referred to the Labour Court on 9th September, 1992 and a
Labour Court investigation took place on 28th September, 1992.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The refurbishment scheme has been known about for some
time but despite requests, the first formal meeting was not
held with the Company until July, 1992. At the meeting the
Union submitted its claim for payment during lay-off or,
subject to agreement, redeployment within the Corporation.
The Union also suggested that the time might be used for the
training of the workers (details supplied). The Company
rejected the claim and refused to guarantee re-employment of
the workers or discuss the format of the complex after its
refurbishment.
2. The workers are unhappy with their treatment by the
Company. They feel that after their long service (details
supplied) they deserve more favourable consideration. The
workers lay-off is to accommodate a multi-million pound
project whereas the cost of topping up unemployment benefit
would cost less than #10,000. The Corporation could safeguard
the workers' income during lay-off by redeploying them to
temporary work with the Corporation.
3. It is unacceptable that the workers should lose out during
the refurbishment period. It is further unacceptable for the
Company to create a situation where the workers are not aware
of what job, if any, they will have when the complex re-opens.
Many other companies in the Galway region have cushioned
workers from the effects of lay-off (details supplied).
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Company has been consistently losing money and in
addition the complex itself has been deteriorating rapidy. To
safeguard the complex and any future employment a
refurbishment programme was initiated. In bringing the
programme this far there has been political and funding
difficulties. The programme is essential if Leisureland is to
have any future.
2. The refurbishment programme necessitates lay-offs and
there is uncertainty as to what positions will be available
for the workers when the complex re-opens. This is because
the content of the work being done at present will have
changed. The Company has given a commitment that when a new
staff structure is finalised there will be discussions on its
implementation. When the complex re-opens the workers will be
offered employment and if this is unsuitable a redundancy
situation will exist. There is no question of workers having
to re-apply for positions.
3. The Company has consistently suffered losses in its
operations. There are no funds available for either the
payment of holidays while on lay-off or to top-up social
welfare payments. The Company is satisfied that it would be
illegal for it to make any such payments and in any case such
payments would disqualify workers from receiving their Social
Welfare entitlements. The funds for the refurbishment of
Leisureland can only be used for capital expenditures and the
Company is unable to put them to any other use.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. The Court has considered the submissions made by the parties.
The Court is satisfied that there are no funds available to
provide additional monies to the staff during the period of
lay-off nor is redeployment an option open to the Company.
In the circumstances therefore the Court does not recommend
concession of the Union's claim in this respect. It does
recommend however that the Company agree to grant for the purpose
of calculating holiday entitlement next year each week of non
employment suffered during the period of lay-off. It should also
in consultation with staff make arrangements that during the
lay-off period such additional training as staff may require to
carry out the full potential range of their tasks be provided in
conjunction with F.A.S.
Finally the Company should endeavour as soon as possible to
provide the Union with firm and definite details of the staffing
levels necessary for the restructured complex.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
John O'Connell
___________________
14th October, 1992. Deputy Chairman
J.F./J.C.
Note
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to
Mr. Jerome Forde, Court Secretary.