Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD95586 Case Number: LCR15026 Section / Act: S26(1) Parties: SPAIGHTS TIMBER PRESERVATIVES LIMITED (Represented by THE IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS CONFEDERATION) - and - MARINE PORT AND GENERAL WORKERS UNION |
Dispute concerning:- 1. Redundancy call-back 2. Holidays - floating days.
Recommendation:
The Court has fully considered all of the views expressed by the
parties in their oral and written submissions and recommends as
follows:
(1) Redundancy - call-back
The Court finds that there was no evidence put forward to
show that there was a commitment given regarding call-back.
However the Court considers that the employee concerned should
be advised of vacancies arising and given the opportunity to
apply.
(2) Holidays - floating days
The Court recommends that the parties operate the taking of
floating days in a flexible way. The employees recognising
the need to ensure the Company can operate efficiently and
the Company recognising the need to accomodate the short
notice requirements of staff. Notice of the taking of
floating days should be given as early as possible.
Division: Mr McGrath Mr Keogh Mr Walsh
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD95586 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR15026
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990
PARTIES:
SPAIGHTS TIMBER PRESERVATIVES LIMITED
(REPRESENTED BY THE IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS CONFEDERATION)
AND
MARINE PORT AND GENERAL WORKERS UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Dispute concerning:-
1. Redundancy call-back
2. Holidays - floating days.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Company employs 17 workers and is located at Monard, Co.
Tipperary. In relation to (1), (Redundancy call-back) the
Union maintains that an agreement exists concerning the issue
of call-back and that a worker recently made complusorily
redundant should be re-employed. This did not happen when
work became available. (2) Holiday entitlements - 'floating
days' are traditionally taken as single days. The Company
maintains that workers must give one week's notice of their
intention to take floating days and placed a notice to that
affect on the notice board. The Union claims that
Management's actions breached the Company/Union agreement.
The Company rejected the Unions claims.
The dispute was referred to the Labour Relations Commission
and a conciliation conference was held on the 6th September,
1995. Agreement was not possible and the dispute was
referred to the Labour Court by the Labour Relations
Commission on the 6th October, 1995. A Court hearing was
held in Limerick on the 7th December, 1995.
REDUNDANCY
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. When the worker was made redundant in October, 1994 the
Union understood in discussions with management that he
would be recalled in the event that business improved.
The Company did not recall the worker but subsequently
recruited additional staff.
2. One of these workers has since voluntarily left the
employment, leaving a vacancy which could be filled by
the worker concerned. There is already established
precedent within the Company for the recall of workers
already made redundant.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The redundancies of October, 1994 were agreed between
the parties. In the case of the worker concerned the
Company paid him his statutory entitlements. In
accepting his redundancy certificate the worker duly
signed a waiver form on the date of termination of his
employment. No reference was made to any call-back
arrangements.
2. Of the workers employed by the Company one was
transferred from the Limerick plant to Monard to assume
duties as a trainee kiln supervisor. The second worker
was employed in a temporary capacity to assist in a
short-term pack-up in business.
FLOATING DAYS
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
5. 1. When the Union and the Company held a meeting relating
to the introduction of new holiday arrangements it was
agreed that there would be "no change in normal holiday
arrangements for 1995 and the parties will discuss in
November, 1995 holiday arrangements for 1996."
2. While the Company outlined difficulty with regard to
annual leave the Union understood that no problems
existed in relation to 'floating days' taken by custom
and practice in a casual manner as need arises. If the
Company needs to change this arrangement it must be
negotiated, not changed unilaterally.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
6. 1. It was always agreed practice that workers would give
the Company one week's notice of their intention to take
floating days. In 1995 the Company decided to reinforce
this procedure and remind its employees of this by
posting a copy of the notice on the notice board.
2. The Company has not breached any agreement on floating
days. The agreement between the parties related to
summer leave entitlements not floating days. There is
nothing unique or exceptional in the Company requirement
to seek advance notice from employees relating to the
taking of floating days. The Company is prepared to be
flexible in this area and will facilitate shorter notice
on floating days.
3. The Company experienced excessive absentee problems
which severely inhibit its capacity to serve customers.
This poses major operational problems in terms of
manpower requirements. Management's prerogative is to
manage the business, therefore the Company is justified
in reinforcing the implementation of a system to manage
floating day arrangements.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court has fully considered all of the views expressed by the
parties in their oral and written submissions and recommends as
follows:
(1) Redundancy - call-back
The Court finds that there was no evidence put forward to
show that there was a commitment given regarding call-back.
However the Court considers that the employee concerned should
be advised of vacancies arising and given the opportunity to
apply.
(2) Holidays - floating days
The Court recommends that the parties operate the taking of
floating days in a flexible way. The employees recognising
the need to ensure the Company can operate efficiently and
the Company recognising the need to accomodate the short
notice requirements of staff. Notice of the taking of
floating days should be given as early as possible.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
19th December, 1995 Tom McGrath
T.O'D./D.T. _______________
Deputy Chairman
Note
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to
Mr. Tom O'Dea, Court Secretary.