Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD95487 Case Number: LCR15025 Section / Act: S26(1) Parties: MICHELL IRELAND LIMITED (Represented by THE IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS CONFEDERATION) - and - AMALGAMATED TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS UNION |
Dispute concerning lay-off/dismissal.
Recommendation:
It is the view of the Court that the trading position of the
Company is creating very uncertain employment conditions,
particularly for probationers/casuals.
Normally where reductions in employment are expected
communications between management and workers and their
representatives would be a priority before any action is taken.
The Court would expect that the principle of last in first out
would have serious consideration whether it related to lay-off or
termination.
In the case before the court it accepts that there is a
substantial reduction in the trading position and will require the
lay-off of probationers with immediate effect. The Court would
expect the management to explore the possibility of providing
alternative employment to all or some of the probationers if
vacancies exist through expansion of other areas of the business.
Finally in the present climate the Court would accept that the
employment of casuals would cease.
Division: Mr Flood Mr Keogh Mr Rorke
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD95487 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR15025
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990
PARTIES:
MICHELL IRELAND LIMITED
(REPRESENTED BY THE IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS CONFEDERATION)
AND
AMALGAMATED TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Dispute concerning lay-off/dismissal.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Company is a wholly owned subsidiary of Michell Leather
of South Australia. It is involved in the processing of wet
blue bovine hide for supply to the quality end of the
upholstery market. It employs 80 workers at its plant in
Portlaw, County Waterford.
The dispute before the Court concerns the Company's decision
to shed 6 workers from its employment in early June, 1995.
Following the release of the names of the workers concerned,
a number of employees engaged in unofficial industrial action
before resuming work.
Following local level discussions the Company on 9th June,
1995 offered to re-instate 3 of the workers. Agreement
regarding the other workers could not be reached and the
matter was referred to the Labour Relations Commission. A
conciliation conference took place on 20th June, 1995 but no
progress was made and the dispute was referred to the Labour
Court on 23rd August, 1995 under Section 26(1) of the
Industrial relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took
place in Waterford on 8th November, 1995.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. On 1st June, 1995 management advised the Union that
resulting from the loss of a specific order, the Company
would have to lay-off 6 workers.
2. The workers were laid-off on the basis of a downturn in
the business. In such circumstances Clause 43 of the
Company/Union Agreement should apply, i.e., the lay-off
period should be defined and a date for a return to work
agreed.
3. The Union appreciates management's decision which
allowed for a return to work of 3 workers. However, the
Union objects to the Company's use of the word
"reinstatement" which the Union considers inappropriate
in the circumstances of lay-off.
4. The Company's claim that the 3 workers concerned
performed poorly during the course of their employment
is rejected by the Union. The workers received no
complaints from management regarding their work
performance. In the circumstances the Union's claim for
the Company to agree a date for a return to work is
justified.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The downturn in business experienced by the Company in
April and May of 1995 was unavoidable and occurred in
the context of a worldwide downturn in demand for
leather products. It left the Company with no
alternative but to shed some members of the workforce.
2. In selecting the individuals concerned, the Comapny was
not bound by any length of service consideration.
Clause 44.4 of the Company/Union Agreement provides that
"in a redundancy situation" length of service will only
be considered "after completion of probationary period".
3. The individuals selected for termination were deemed by
the Company to have performed poorly during the course
of their employment. The individuals were aware of the
standards required.
4. The Company, as a gesture of goodwill, allowed 3 of the
individuals to remain in employment. This was in
recognition of the fact that they had not been made
explicitly aware of their performance shortcomings. The
Company is retaining more personnel than economic and
trading circumstances justify.
5. The Company kept the Union fully informed of trading
circumstances and developments.
6. The trading circumstances of the Company have since
deteriorated which has resulted in the termination of
all temporary employment contracts and the placing of
the workforce on protective notice of lay-off and/or
short time from October, 1995. The Company cannot give
any definite indication of when an upturn of trading
circumstances might occur.
RECOMMENDATION:
It is the view of the Court that the trading position of the
Company is creating very uncertain employment conditions,
particularly for probationers/casuals.
Normally where reductions in employment are expected
communications between management and workers and their
representatives would be a priority before any action is taken.
The Court would expect that the principle of last in first out
would have serious consideration whether it related to lay-off or
termination.
In the case before the court it accepts that there is a
substantial reduction in the trading position and will require the
lay-off of probationers with immediate effect. The Court would
expect the management to explore the possibility of providing
alternative employment to all or some of the probationers if
vacancies exist through expansion of other areas of the business.
Finally in the present climate the Court would accept that the
employment of casuals would cease.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
18th December, 1995 Finbarr Flood
F.B./D.T. _______________
Deputy Chairman
Note
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to
Mr. Fran Brennan, Court Secretary.