Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD93321 Case Number: LCR14137 Section / Act: S26(1) Parties: TINSLEY WIRE (IRELAND) LIMITED - and - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION |
Dispute concerning the payment of wages during lay-off.
Recommendation:
5. Having considered the submissions from the parties the Court
is of the view that the existing agreement in "make-up of wages
during lay-off" requires re-negotiation.
The Court accordingly recommends that the parties immediately
enter into negotiations for the purpose of concluding a new
agreement.
Failing agreement, the matter should be re-submitted to the Labour
Relations Commission and, if necessary, to the Court.
Division: Ms Owens Mr McHenry Mr O'Murchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD93321 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR14137
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990
PARTIES: TINSLEY WIRE (IRELAND) LIMITED
(REPRESENTED BY THE IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS CONFEDERATION)
and
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Dispute concerning the payment of wages during lay-off.
BACKGROUND:
2. 1. The Company was part of the Unidare Group of Companies and
was one of 6 which were re-structured into separate trading
entities in 1988. Within Unidare, there was an Agreement on
lay-off which provided for the payment of 100% net pay (taking
account of Social Welfare payments and tax rebate) for the
first 3 weeks of lay-off and 85% thereafter.
2. In January, 1993, the Company required the lay-off of
workers for the first time since the re-structuring. The
Company refused to pay the "make-up" payments. The Union
objected and sought the implementation of the Unidare
Agreement. The Company claimed that no such Agreement applied
in the Company. It was agreed locally that for the lay-off,
the Company would make-up in full net wages on a once-off
basis for the proposed one week's lay-off. This was
conditional on a joint referral to a third party.
3. The dispute was referred to the Labour Relations
Commission and a conciliation conference was held on 3rd
March, 1993. There was no compromise on either side's
position and the dispute was referred to the Labour Court on
24th May, 1993 under Section 26(1), Industrial Relations Act,
1990. A Labour Court investigation took place on 30th June,
1993 (the earliest date suitable to both parties).
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. Part of the negotiations which led to the break-up of the
Unidare Group incorporated a specific Agreement that lay-offs
would continue to be dealt with as heretofore. The Agreement
was accepted by ballot by the workers and has been honoured to
date by all former companies of the Group. The matter was
dealt with in Labour Court Recommendation No. 12415 (details
supplied).
2. The Union insists that the Agreement is valid and must be
honoured by the Company. The lay-offs provision was central
to the Agreement reached on the re-structuring of the Company.
This dispute arose from an attempt by the Company to abrogate
an Agreement as a means of off-setting some of the effects of
the currency crisis. That crisis has now passed. The
Agreement was freely entered into and must remain in place
until such time as it is re-negotiated voluntarily.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The history of the Unidare Group lay-off and make-up
policy was determined under a group structure. The
organisation and independent status of each of the individual
restructured companies was negotiated with the Unions. The
restructuring provided for separate negotiations taking
account of the economic circumstances of each Company and its
ability to pay. This is the basis upon which the Company has
refused to continue the old arrangements.
2. In its present financial circumstances, it is unrealistic
to expect the Company to pay make-up, especially as bonus (up
to 50%) and shift premium (25%) are also being defined as part
of the basic rate. There was a specific Agreement on make-up
in Unidare. It arose mainly through custom and practice. It
is a practice which the Company cannot afford to establish.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. Having considered the submissions from the parties the Court
is of the view that the existing agreement in "make-up of wages
during lay-off" requires re-negotiation.
The Court accordingly recommends that the parties immediately
enter into negotiations for the purpose of concluding a new
agreement.
Failing agreement, the matter should be re-submitted to the Labour
Relations Commission and, if necessary, to the Court.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Evelyn Owens
____________________
14th July, 1993. Deputy Chairman.
J.F./J.C.
Note
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to
Mr. Jerome Forde, Court Secretary.