Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD93412 Case Number: LCR14186 Section / Act: S26(1) Parties: NAT ROSS LIMITED - and - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION |
Dispute concerning the selection for lay-off.
Recommendation:
5. Having considered the information given by the Union and
Management at the hearing of this case, the Court is satisfied
that changes in the volume of business obtained by the Company may
well be such as to require lay-offs or short time working for a
period at the Cork Depot.
The Court is satisfied that the Union's claims made on 16th April,
1993, in an effort to minimise the impact of such lay-offs if they
do occur, have been reasonably met by the Company proposals dated
26th April, 1993 No. 2 to 8 and recommends that these should be
accepted by the Union. At this time it is not possible to predict
what number, if any, might be laid off in future slack seasons,
but the Court does not find grounds to recommend concession of the
Union's claim that selection for lay-off or short-time should be
on an overall company basis. It is satisfied that the Cork and
Dublin branches should be treated separately, but it notes the
Company commitment that should lay-offs occur in Cork,
subcontractors will not be employed locally or used from Dublin to
undertake work proper to Cork Depot.
Division: Mr Heffernan Mr McHenry Mr Walsh
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD93412 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR14186
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990
PARTIES: NAT ROSS LIMITED
(Represented by the Irish Business and Employers Confederation)
and
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Dispute concerning the selection for lay-off.
BACKGROUND:
2. 1. Nat Ross Limited operates a removal business from its
two depots in Cork and Dublin. At a meeting held in Cork on
5th January, 1993, the Company proposed to lay-off two workers
in the Cork area on a short term basis. The Union asserted
that the principle of "last-in, first-out" should apply and
that employees who were recruited in Dublin, and who have less
service than those in Cork, should be laid-off first,
regardless of where the reduction in business occurred.
Furthermore, they maintained that workers from Cork should be
sent to Dublin to cover for those laid-off.
2. Agreement could not be reached and the matter was
referred to the Labour Relations Commission. A conciliation
conference took place on 10th March, 1993. On 16th April,
1993 at a local meeting the Union put forward the following
proposals for acceptance of short-time/lay-offs:-
(1) An increase on weekly payments which must be
ongoing for the period of short-time working.
(2) No loss of holiday entitlements
(3) No loss of pension entitlements
(4) Nominated period of lay-off
(5) Number involved in short-time working
(6) Right to claim work in Dublin area
(7) No deletion of time should redundancy occur.
3. The Company responded by letter dated 26th April, 1993 with
the following proposals:-
1. The Company envisage having to introduce some
measure of short-time working. This will have the
effect of placing up to four employees on lay-off.
This altered pattern of working is not expected to
extend beyond 15th May, 1993. Past experience
dictates that shortages in availability of work
typically occur from the month of December to May.
2. The Company will agree to pay the first three days
of any lay-off situation which social welfare
payments do not meet. In addition, the Company
will pay #25.00 per week for each employee subject
to lay-off. This payment will be paid for three
weeks in any one year.
3. Lay-offs in Cork will not affect Dublin trading.
However, suitable work in Dublin may be offered to
Cork employees on lay-off. It is accepted that
such work must be offered on competitive terms
which allow the Company a return on work done.
Cork employees subject to short-time working may
elect not to accept such work.
4. Holiday entitlement will remain unaffected,
however, contributions will be paid if men are not
earning.
5. Reckonable service in the event of redundancy
calculations will not be affected by this
agreement.
6. Should lay-offs occur in Cork, sub-contractors will
not be employed locally or used from Dublin to
undertake work proper to Cork Depot.
7. Employees may still elect to use-up outstanding
annual leave entitlement during slack work periods.
8. On completion of lay-off period, the Company and
the union agree to review the operation of the
agreement.
4. The Union rejected the proposals and agreement could not be
reached. The dispute was referred by the Labour Relations
Commission to the Labour Court on the 12th July, 1993. The
Court investigated the matter on the 18th August, 1993 in
Cork.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The principle of last-in first-out, which was used
previously by the Company, should be used now company wide.
2. Proposals to resolve the dispute were put to the Company
and rejected.
3. Management have made no effort to resolve the dispute.
4. The workers in Cork are prepared to work anywhere
throughout the country.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Company cannot afford to remain competitive and
carry the substantial costs of surplus labour during the slack
period from November to May.
2. Lay-off and short-time working patterns are the standard
mechanisms used to cope with peaks and troughs in business
demand.
3. There has been an increase in the number of competitors
in the area.
4. The Dublin and Cork Depots are seperate, serving
differing business and geographical regions.
5. The cost to the Company of relocating a Cork worker to
Dublin in the event of slack business in Cork is not
practical.
6. The Company has lost substantial business in the last
few years.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. Having considered the information given by the Union and
Management at the hearing of this case, the Court is satisfied
that changes in the volume of business obtained by the Company may
well be such as to require lay-offs or short time working for a
period at the Cork Depot.
The Court is satisfied that the Union's claims made on 16th April,
1993, in an effort to minimise the impact of such lay-offs if they
do occur, have been reasonably met by the Company proposals dated
26th April, 1993 No. 2 to 8 and recommends that these should be
accepted by the Union. At this time it is not possible to predict
what number, if any, might be laid off in future slack seasons,
but the Court does not find grounds to recommend concession of the
Union's claim that selection for lay-off or short-time should be
on an overall company basis. It is satisfied that the Cork and
Dublin branches should be treated separately, but it notes the
Company commitment that should lay-offs occur in Cork,
subcontractors will not be employed locally or used from Dublin to
undertake work proper to Cork Depot.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Heffernan
2nd September, 1993 ----------------
P O'C/U.S. Chairman
NOTE:
ENQUIRIES CONCERNING THIS RECOMMENDATION SHOULD BE ADDRESSED TO
MR PAUL O'CONNOR, COURT SECRETARY.