Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD94299 Case Number: LCR14483 Section / Act: S26(1) Parties: PREMIER PERICLASE LTD - and - TEEU |
Dispute concerning the replacememt of a fitter.
Recommendation:
While the Court understands the aspirations of the Union in
relation to the filling of a post created by a promotion, it does
not appear to it, on the basis of the submissions made, that the
Company acted unreasonably in this instance.
Accordingly, the Court does not recommend concession of the
Union's claim.
Division: Mr Heffernan Mr McHenry Mr Walsh
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD94299 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR14483
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990
PARTIES:
PREMIER PERICLASE LIMITED
AND
TECHNICAL ENGINEERING AND ELECTRICAL UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Dispute concerning the replacement of a fitter.
BACKGROUND:
2. 1. The Company employs 250 workers in the manufacture of
seawater magnesium. There are twenty nine tradesmen
represented by this claim. In early 1993, one of the
foremen died and, in accordance with custom and
practice, the Company filled the vacancy internally.
The Union presented a claim for the filling of the
consequential vacancy. The Company rejected the claim
on the basis that fitter numbers were never agreed at a
set level.
2. The claim was referred to the Labour Relations
Commission and a conciliation conference was held on
17th May, 1994. No progress was possible and on 24th
May, 1994, the claim was referred to the Labour Court
under section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act,
1990. A Labour Court investigation took place in
Dundalk on 8th June, 1994.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Company misled the fitters by encouraging them to
compete for the foreman's vacancy without informing them
that the consequential vacancy would not be filled. Had
the Company made its intentions clear there would have
been no applicants for the job.
2. Where employment levels have fluctuated in the past, it
was by agreement. No agreement exists in this case.
The nature of the work is arduous and the loss of the
promoted craftsman spreads an even greater burden over
the remaining men.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. At the time of the foreman's vacancy, the Company
reviewed its requirements and decided not to fill the
consequential vacancy. There is no redundancy
involved and the Company has the right to determine the
numbers of workers required to meet its requirements.
2. Since 1980, the number of craftsmen has ranged from
between twenty-one and thirty-one, depending on demand.
The Union has never objected in the past. At no time
was there an agreement on a manning level of
twenty-nine. The Company views its present complement
as being the optimum due to trading conditions (details
supplied).
RECOMMENDATION:
While the Court understands the aspirations of the Union in
relation to the filling of a post created by a promotion, it does
not appear to it, on the basis of the submissions made, that the
Company acted unreasonably in this instance.
Accordingly, the Court does not recommend concession of the
Union's claim.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
24th June, 1994 Kevin Heffernan
J.F./D.T. _______________
Chairman
Note
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to
Mr. Jerome Forde, Court Secretary.