Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD95488 Case Number: LCR15035 Section / Act: S26(1) Parties: M & Q PLASTICS LIMITED (Represented by THE IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS CONFEDERATION) - and - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION |
Dispute concerning selection for lay-off.
Recommendation:
Given the experience and seniority of the claimant the Court finds
no reasonable grounds have been put forward to show why he has not
been recalled.
The Court recognises the need of the Company to ensure production
is maximised.
Given all the circumstances however, the employee concerned should
be recalled immediately and his performance monitored, on such
work as he may be given, to ensure the objectives of the Company
continue to be achieved.
The Court so recommends.
Division: Mr McGrath Mr Keogh Mr Walsh
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD95488 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR15035
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990
PARTIES:
M & Q PLASTICS LIMITED
(REPRESENTED BY THE IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS CONFEDERATION)
AND
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Dispute concerning selection for lay-off.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Company manufactures plastic moulds and employs 60
workers. It placed a number of workers on lay-off in June,
1995 because of a down-turn in business. The dispute
concerns the Company's method of selection of workers for
lay-off, specifically in relation to one worker who has been
in the Company's employment for a number of years. The Union
claims that the worker was unfairly selected, and that more
junior workers were retained in the employment. Management
rejected the claim. The dispute was referred to the Labour
Relations Commission and a conciliation conference was held
on the 22nd June, 1995. Agreement was not possible and the
dispute was referred to the Labour Court by the Labour
Relations Commission on the 23rd August, 1995. A Court
hearing was held in Limerick on the 7th December, 1995.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Company's decision to place a worker, with just
under ten years service, on lay-off while retaining
casual employees, has created instability and insecurity
among the workforce.
2. The worker concerned has considerable experience in
various aspects of the Company's operations. The Union
made numerous suggestions to Management as to how the
workers could be retained in the employment without loss
of productivity (details supplied to the Court).
3. The Company's treatment of this worker has been unfair
and unsympathetic. The Union accepts that in
exceptional circumstances workers may be retained
because of special skills. In general, however, the
principle in selection for lay-off should be based on
seniority. The worker concerned, given his long service
and experience, should be re-employed forthwith.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. Whilst seniority is a criteria in lay-off it cannot be a
blanket provision without regard to other factors. A
key-factor must always be the retention of essential
skills. The Union recognises this fact.
2. The Company's financial situation is serious. It is
essential to retain and increase productivity. The
Company could not place the worker nominated by the
Union into a production position as he is not suitable
to machine work. The Company did make an offer of
unskilled work to him in the bag department but he
refused this work.
3. The Company's approach to selection for lay-off gave due
regard to the seniority principle. Three workers in
'surplus jobs' were retained on the basis of their
seniority and deployed to other posts, thus displacing
less senior colleagues. In all circumstances the
Company had to bear in mind the suitability of the
individuals concerned. It did so on the basis of
objective assessment.
4. The Company acknowledges its obligation to cross-train
employees where possible. However, limited resources,
and extreme financial and market pressures, severely
hamper the Company's ability to do so at present. The
Company cannot forfeit productivity for the sake of
rigid adherence to an unworkable principle.
RECOMMENDATION:
Given the experience and seniority of the claimant the Court finds
no reasonable grounds have been put forward to show why he has not
been recalled.
The Court recognises the need of the Company to ensure production
is maximised.
Given all the circumstances however, the employee concerned should
be recalled immediately and his performance monitored, on such
work as he may be given, to ensure the objectives of the Company
continue to be achieved.
The Court so recommends.
~
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.