Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD93337 Case Number: LCR14170 Section / Act: S26(1) Parties: CURRAGH TINTAWN CARPETS LIMITED - and - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION |
Breach of commitment.
Recommendation:
5. The Court is satisfied from the submissions both oral and
written that there was an understanding by the workers that if
they supported the Company by remaining with it then those who
chose to leave would not be re-employed.
It is clear to the Court that the employees concerned, through
their contribution, have largely contributed to the development of
the business and the creation of much needed employment. The
Court can readily understand the feelings of those workers who
remained with the Company at its most vulnerable.
However, given the precarious state of the Industry generally and
the expressed view of the workers that they wished to see
employment maintained and expanded the Court recommends the
members accept a suitably worded apology for the action of the
Company and a commitment that if such a situation arises in the
future the matter will be discussed prior to any appointment.
The Court so recommends.
Division: MrMcGrath Mr McHenry Mr Walsh
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD93337 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR14170
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990
PARTIES: CURRAGH TINTAWN CARPETS LIMITED
(REPRESENTED BY THE IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS CONFEDERATION)
and
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Breach of commitment.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Company was formed in 1987 following a management buy-out
of the carpet making division of Irish Ropes PLC. Prior to the
formation of the Company discussions took place between the
parties following which agreement was reached on the transfer of
the 38 workers here concerned to Curragh Carpets. The worker's
continuity of service was not affected by the transfer.
The Union claims that a commitment given by management at the time
of the buy-out that workers who opted for redundancy payment from
Irish Ropes PLC would not be re-employed by the Company has been
breached.
The Union submitted a claim for compensation on behalf of the
workers who transferred to the Company. The Company rejected the
claim. Local level discussions failed to resolve the issue and
the matter was referred to the Labour Relations Commission. A
conciliation conference was held on 13th January, 1993 but no
agreement was reached and the matter was referred to the Labour
Court on 1st June, 1993. The Labour Court hearing took place on
13th June, 1993.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. In 1987 the management buy-out team pleaded with staff for
their co-operation in their take-over attempt. A future with
good prospects was outlined and workers were promised that
they would be "looked after" if they kept faith with the
Company.
2. Because of the promises made in 1987, the majority of the
carpet division transferred to the Company.
3. Among the promises made were future employment
opportunities for families of existing staff and a commitment
that workers who opted for voluntary redundancy from Irish
Ropes PLC would not be re-engaged.
4. During the latter part of 1992, the Company declared its
intention to employ a number of the former employees of Irish
Ropes PLC. A formal statement of disapproval was recorded by
the workers concerned.
5. The new Company has prospered but industrial relations at
the plant have deteriorated.
6. Management have acknowledged that commitments made in 1987
have not been honoured. The workers who have remained loyal
to the Company have been treated unfairly and compensation
under the circumstances of #1,000 per person is not
unreasonable.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Company denies that a commitment was entered into
between the then Irish Ropes workforce and the management
buy-out team to the effect that workers who took voluntary
redundancy from Irish Ropes PLC would not be re-employed by
Curragh Carpets.
2. If such a commitment was entered into, which is denied,
then the hiring on a temporary basis of one employee hardly
constitutes a breach of this commitment such as to warrant the
payment of #1,000 (or any sum) to the workers concerned. The
worker who was employed possessed skills which were needed by
the Company in order to meet production requirements.
3. At a time when other carpet manufacturers have experienced
considerable difficulties in the market place the Company has
managed not only to sustain the jobs of the employees who
transferred from Irish Ropes but has increased employment.
4. The Union's claim has no justification and should be
rejected.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. The Court is satisfied from the submissions both oral and
written that there was an understanding by the workers that if
they supported the Company by remaining with it then those who
chose to leave would not be re-employed.
It is clear to the Court that the employees concerned, through
their contribution, have largely contributed to the development of
the business and the creation of much needed employment. The
Court can readily understand the feelings of those workers who
remained with the Company at its most vulnerable.
However, given the precarious state of the Industry generally and
the expressed view of the workers that they wished to see
employment maintained and expanded the Court recommends the
members accept a suitably worded apology for the action of the
Company and a commitment that if such a situation arises in the
future the matter will be discussed prior to any appointment.
The Court so recommends.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Tom McGrath
_______________________
11th August, 1993. Deputy Chairman.
F.B./J.C.
Note
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to
Mr. Fran Brennan, Court Secretary.