Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD94178 Case Number: LCR14527 Section / Act: S26(1) Parties: CURRAGH TINTAWN CARPETS LIMITED - and - TECHNICAL ENGINEERING AND ELECTRICAL UNION |
Claim by the Union for the re-instatement of two apprentices.
Recommendation:
The Court is fully cognisant of the financial circumstances of the
Company. However, the Court is not satisfied the Company carried
out the procedures required of it in respect of the apprentices.
In all the circumstances the Court finds that the apprentices
should be reinstated from the date of their dismissal and
arrangements should be made with FAS in relation to the period of
time which has elapsed.
The Court so recommends.
Division: MrMcGrath Mr Brennan Ms Ni Mhurchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD94178 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR14527
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
TECHNICAL ENGINEERING AND ELECTRICAL UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Claim by the Union for the re-instatement of two apprentices.
BACKGROUND:
2. Due to difficult trading conditions the Company implemented a
rationalisation programme in 1993. A number of workers were
declared redundant, including two apprentices (one fitter and
one electrician). The Union submitted a claim for the
reinstatement of the two apprentices. Management rejected
the claim. The dispute was referred to the Labour Relations
Commission and a conciliation conference was held on the 24th
February, 1994. As no agreement could be reached the dispute
was referred to the Labour Court on the 21st March, 1994. A
Court hearing was held on the 15th July, 1994.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The decision to dismiss the two apprentices concerned
contravened the Apprenticeship Act (Trade of
Electrician) (Dismissal) Rules 1965. Identical rules
apply to the trade of fitter. These rules specify that
in all cases, except gross misconduct, an apprentice can
only be dismissed with the consent of FAS. The Company
did not receive the written consent of FAS.
2. The Labour Court at a previous hearing of a similar case
relating to the dismissal of two apprentices before the
end of their apprenticeship recommended that
"............ they be restored to their apprenticeship
for the full duration thereof". (LCR 13626 refers).
3. The Union seeks the reinstatement of the two workers
effective from the date of their dismissal, that they be
paid their wages from that date and serve the full
duration of their apprenticeship.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Company was forced to implement a total of fifteen
redundancies (including the two apprentices) because of
serious financial problems (Details supplied to the
Court).
2. The Company consulted with FAS prior to the termination
of the two apprentices employment. It sought to obtain
financial assistance towards the cost of their
employment, FAS was unable to make a contribution or
find alternative positions for the two apprentices.
3. As a result of the cost-cutting programme the Company
achieved a break-even situation early in 1994 but due to
a significant down-turn in trade has experienced serious
liquidity problems leading to the appointment of an
Examiner in June, 1994.
4. The Company reluctantly took the decision to dismiss the
two apprentices. However in view of its financial
position it cannot possibly reinstate the two workers.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court is fully cognisant of the financial circumstances of the
Company. However, the Court is not satisfied the Company carried
out the procedures required of it in respect of the apprentices.
In all the circumstances the Court finds that the apprentices
should be reinstated from the date of their dismissal and
arrangements should be made with FAS in relation to the period of
time which has elapsed.
The Court so recommends.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
23rd August, 1994 Tom McGrath
T.O'D./D.T. _______________
Deputy Chairman
Note
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to
Mr. Tom O'Dea, Court Secretary.