Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD92413 Case Number: AD92195 Section / Act: S13(9) Parties: INDUSTRIAL YARNS BRAY LTD. - and - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION |
Appeal by the Union against Rights Commissioner's Recommendation No. BC354/91 concerning lay-off procedures.
Recommendation:
Having considered the submissions made by the parties the Court is
satisfied that the Rights Commissioners Recommendation is correct.
The Court, therefore, decides that the Recommendation should
stand.
Division: Mr O'Connell Mr McHenry Mr Walsh
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD92413 APPEAL DECISION NO. AD19592
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 13(9) INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969
PARTIES: INDUSTRIAL YARNS BRAY LTD.
AND
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Appeal by the Union against Rights Commissioner's
Recommendation No. BC354/91 concerning lay-off procedures.
BACKGROUND:
2. Due to adverse trading conditions and financial constraints
within the Company it was decided that it would be necessary to
lay-off employees for one week in every four. In order to protect
the Company's long-term interests, the staff agreed to the
proposal. In April, 1992, staff were laid-off for one week only
as it transpired that there had been a upturn in business. During
the period of lay-off six employees - three managers and three
directors - remained at work in order to deal with customer and
sales queries. As security was required for the week in question,
the watchkeeping duties were taken over by the managers in additon
to performing their other duties.
The Union contends that the Company had no right to appoint the
managers to watchkeeping duties. These duties are normally
carried out by supervisors. It claimed that the Company, through
its actions, were not treating all employees fairly or equally.
The issue was referred by the Union, to the Rights Commissioner
for investigation which took place on 11th June 1992 and the
following recommendation issued on 7th July, 1992:-
"The shop steward has 33 years service and 30 of these were
served on shift. This is commendable service to any
employer. However, the needs of the Company have changed
dramatically since 1959 and not all systems which served well
in the past have relevance in the much changed trading
conditions of the 90's.
I do not find on the evidence presented that the Company
acted in an unfair manner although I do recongnise the way
the matter was perceived by the shop floor.
In my view there are no reasonable grounds for concession of
the claim and I recommend that it fails."
The recommendation was appealed to the Labour Court, by the Union,
in accordance with Section 36(2) of the Industrial Relations Act,
1990. The Labour Court investigated the dispute on 21st August,
1992.
UNIONS ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. Normally the shift supervisors have assumed security
responsibilities when required. The Union contends that the
Company was wrong in using the managers to cover duties which
had previously been carried out by the supervisors. It is
seeking compensation for the wages lost to them as a result
of this action.
2. In the interest of good industrial relations the Company
must be seen to treat all categories of workers equally. In
this case it would appear that the Company expects one
category to make all the sacrifices. If "belt tightening" is
necessary within a Company it should apply right across the
board.
COMPANYS ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The shift supervisors are employed as supervisors and
not as watchmen. Watchkeeping is not part of their duties.
This job is normally carried out by people, generally
ex-employees, who are employed specifically for holiday
security work. There is no precedent for the Union's claim
that watchkeeping is/should be carried out by shift
supervisors during periods of factory closure.
2. As the lay-off was due to financial constraints, the
Company felt that it was more economical and logical that the
watchkeeping duties be carried out by workers who had to
report for duty anyway.
DECISION:
Having considered the submissions made by the parties the Court is
satisfied that the Rights Commissioners Recommendation is correct.
The Court, therefore, decides that the Recommendation should
stand.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
John O'Connell
9th September, 1992. ____________________________________
A.O.S./M.H.
Deputy Chairman