Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD94308 Case Number: LCR14541 Section / Act: S26(1) Parties: F.M.C. INTERNATIONAL (F.M.C.) - and - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION |
Claim for permanent employment.
Recommendation:
Having considered the submissions from the parties the Court is of
the view that the Company are within their rights in terminating
the claimant's employment which was temporary.
To resolve the dispute the Court recommends that the parties meet
and negotiate an exit package for the claimant to include the
items outlined by the Company in its submission - notice period;
assistance with outplacement and an ex-gratia payment.
Division: Ms Owens Mr McHenry Mr Rorke
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD94308 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR14541
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990
PARTIES:
F.M.C. INTERNATIONAL (F.M.C.)
(REPRESENTED BY THE IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS CONFEDERATION)
AND
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Claim for permanent employment.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Company has operated in Little Island since 1978, and
employs approximately 112 workers. It is involved in the
manufacture of basic ingredients - cellulose from wood-pulp
and carrageenan from seaweed - which are supplied to food and
pharmaceutical companies.
The worker concerned commenced his employment with the
Company in a temporary capacity as an associate laboratory
technician on 7th October, 1991. His contract was for a
period of 3 months. Since 1991, his employment has been
extended at different stages either verbally or in writing.
In May, 1993, the worker concerned applied for the position
of analytical chemist. He was interviewed for the position
along with other candidates but none of the candidates were
found to be suitable for the job.
In December, 1993, the worker was informed that his
employment would be terminated on 31st Janaury, 1994. His
employment was formally extended on 1st February, 1994 and
was further extended on 25th February, 1994, pending the
return to work of a laboratory technician absent on sick
leave.
In January, 1994, the Union claimed that the worker should be
employed permanently. The Company rejected the claim. Local
level discussions took place but no agreement was reached.
The dispute was referred to the Labour Relations Commissions.
A conciliation conference was held on 15th March, 1994. As
no agreement was reached the dispute was referred to the
Labour Court on 25th May, 1994, in accordance with Section
26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court
hearing took place in Cork on 13th July, 1994.
Subsequent to the conciliation conference the Company without
prejudice to its stated position at conciliation indicated
that it would be prepared to develope a proposal that would
contain the following three elements:
" - an agreed notice period to allow the worker to find
alternative employment;
- assistance with outplacement;
- an ex-gratia payment as a transition payment at the
end of the agreed notice period".
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. Management has acknowledged that the worker performs his
duties to a high standard and that there is no question
regarding his ability to do the work.
2. The analytical chemist is now performing many of the
duties previously performed by the worker concerned.
3. The worker was advised by management that his position
would be regularised. This led the worker to understand
that his position would be made permanent.
4. Recently the worker has been removed from the main
laboratory area, but is still being employed in a
productive and responsible role within the technical
department. His current work includes, auditing of
procedures/records, procedural distribution retrieval,
index review, review of plant operating manuals/plant
environmental manuals and assisting with the responsible
care programme and future projects.
5. The worker has almost 3 years service with the Company.
He has proven himself to be flexible and capable of
performing duties which are available within the
Company. He has received no complaints from management
regarding his work and in the circumstances his
appointment to a permanent position is justified.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The business need to remain competitive has required an
upgrading of the Company's capabilities and systems
across a number of departments including the laboratory.
Specialist personnel have been recruited, for each of
these areas, which included the analytical chemist.
2. The worker was aware at all times that his position was
temporary.
3. In 1992/1993 the worker was reminded regularly by
management that his position was temporary and that he
should look to develop his career outside of F.M.C.
During this time he took the following action:
1. He continued to seek out opportunities in other
companies.
2. He had the Technical and Market Liaison Manager and
Manager Human Resources review his C.V. and made
some modifications based on their inputs.
3. He asked the company to distribute his C.V. through
it's contacts with other companies.
4. At his request personal approaches were made by
senior management to local companies. These
approaches were made as follow ups to the workers
applications for employment with these firms.
4. The Company cannot justify the creation of an additional
laboratory technician post. It does not have a
requirement on an on-going basis for an additional
laboratory technician.
RECOMMENDATION:
Having considered the submissions from the parties the Court is of
the view that the Company are within their rights in terminating
the claimant's employment which was temporary.
To resolve the dispute the Court recommends that the parties meet
and negotiate an exit package for the claimant to include the
items outlined by the Company in its submission - notice period;
assistance with outplacement and an ex-gratia payment.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
8th August, 1994 Evelyn Owens
F.B./M.M. __________________
Deputy Chairperson
Note
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to
Mr. Fran Brennan, Court Secretary.