Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD9386 Case Number: AD9335 Section / Act: S13(9) Parties: BUTLER ENGINEERING - and - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION |
Appeal by the Union against Rights Commissioner's recommendation No. S.T. 344/92 concerning the selection of a worker for lay off.
Recommendation:
5. Having reviewed the submissions made by the parties and the
oral evidence presented at the hearing, the Court does not
consider that grounds have been established to justify alteration
of the Rights Commissioner' recommendation. Accordingly the
Rights Commissioner's recommendation stands.
The Court so decides.
Division: Mr Heffernan Mr Brennan Mr Walsh
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD9386 APPEAL DECISION NO. AD3593
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1946 TO 1990
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969
SECTION 13(9)
PARTIES: BUTLER ENGINEERING
(REPRESENTED BY THE IRISH BUSINESS EMPLOYERS CONFEDERATION)
and
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Appeal by the Union against Rights Commissioner's
recommendation No. S.T. 344/92 concerning the selection of a
worker for lay off.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Company is engaged in the structural steel business and
employs approximately 70 workers. Following a downturn in
business, some workers were placed on lay off in 1992. The
Company selected candidates using the following criteria:-
1. The maintenance of the most efficient and economic
running of the factory to ensure that further
redundancy does not ensue if possible.
2. The operation of vital equipment required for the
running of the factory.
3. Seniority to be taken into consideration.
The worker concerned was laid off on the 8th May, 1992. He had 14
years service and was employed as a fabricator. The Union claimed
that he was unfairly selected and the issue was referred to a
Rights Commissioner for investigation and recommendation. On the
2nd January, 1993 the Rights Commissioner issued his
recommendation as follows:
"I am satisfied that the Company acted fairly in
the manner and method of selection for lay off.
They were entitled to have a balanced reduction in
the workforce and this was achieved fairly. I
therefore recommend that the claim of unfair
selection for lay off fails.
On the 21st January, 1993 the Union appealed the recommendation to
the Labour Court under Section 13(9) of the Industrial Relations
act, 1969. The Court heard the appeal in Tullamore on the 20th
April, 1993.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Company gave no commitment to the Union that it
would implement a last in first out policy in relation to lay
offs. This is generally the norm in industrial relations.
Management also gave the worker concerned very little notice
of his lay off. He was aggrieved that he could not contest
his selection on the basis of his long service and seniority.
2. The Company's action is in breach of the spirit of the
clause of the Company/Union agreement relating to lay offs.
The Union rejects the Company's interpretation of an agreement
reached at conciliation in July, 1992, that only a union
official can see an employee's personal file. There is no
substantive reason why the worker concerned has been treated
so harshly. The Company erred in its use of the criteria for
lay off. These would have been more appropriate in a
redundancy situation.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. In selecting the worker concerned for lay off, the
Company adhered strictly to the terms of the Company/Union
agreement and the agreement reached at conciliation. The
specific purpose of this agreement was to ensure
confidentiality for all workers in their dealings with the
Company. The Union official had access to the worker's file
but chose not to avail of it.
2. Other workers were laid off. They were selected on the
same criteria used to select the claimant. Some of these
workers had longer service than the claimant. The worker was
fairly selected for lay off. The Company asks the Court to
uphold the Rights Commissioner's recommendation.
DECISION:
5. Having reviewed the submissions made by the parties and the
oral evidence presented at the hearing, the Court does not
consider that grounds have been established to justify alteration
of the Rights Commissioner' recommendation. Accordingly the
Rights Commissioner's recommendation stands.
The Court so decides.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Heffernan
6th May, 1993 ----------------
T O'D/U.S. Chairman