Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD95231 Case Number: LCR14812 Section / Act: S26(1) Parties: KINGSPAN BUILDING PRODUCTS (IBEC) - and - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION |
Recall/lay-off of temporary employees and their status.
Recommendation:
Having considered the submissions from the parties and noting the
Company's acceptance of the principle of seniority/suitability in
dealing with recruitment/lay-off of temporary workers the Court
has concluded that the Company's position is reasonable in the
circumstances and should be upheld.
The Court however recommends that for the purpose of pay only
cumulative service in the Company should be taken into account.
Division: Ms Owens Mr Pierce Ms Ni Mhurchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD95231 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR14812
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990
PARTIES:
KINGSPAN BUILDING PRODUCTS
AND
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Recall/lay-off of temporary employees and their status.
BACKGROUND:
2. 1. The Company is located in Kingscourt, Co. Cavan and is a
wholly owned subsidiary of the Kingspan Group plc. It
employs between 130 and 150 people depending on demand
for its products. The Company manufactures insulated
panels for use in roofs and walls of industrial,
commercial and leisure buildings as well as
manufacturing a wide range of roof ancillaries such as
gutters, lights and flashings.
2. The current dispute between the Company and the Union
involves twenty-three temporary employees employed as
temporary production operatives to meet the production
needs of the Company at peak periods. When demand
ceases the temporary workers are laid off. The Union is
objecting to the Company using fixed term contracts for
the temporary staff. The Union claims that fixed term
contracts were introduced in 1994 without consultation
with it. As no agreement could be reached between the
parties the dispute was referred to the Labour Relations
Commission. A conciliation conference was held in
Kells, Co. Meath on 7th March, 1995. As no agreement
was possible the dispute was referred to the Labour
Court on 22nd March, 1995 in accordance with Section
26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. The Court
investigated the dispute on 16th June, 1995 (the
earliest date suitable to both parties).
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The method of lay off for temporary workers should be
strictly based on seniority.
2. In 1994, the Company, without consulting the Union,
introduced fixed term contracts for temporary employees.
Under this system, the Company has arbitrarily replaced
the previous practice of employing temporary staff for a
period of time, followed by lay off and subsequent
recall when required. Under the previous system,
temporary employees could accumulate rights under
legislation such as the Minimum Notice and Terms of
Employment Act or qualify for redundancy payments under
the redundancy legislation. When fixed term contracts
expire, employees are no longer on the books of the
Company and therefore cannot accumulate rights under the
legislation.
3. The 1982 Company/Union Agreement, part of which deals
with the employment of temporary workers and their
rights, did not include the provision of fixed term
contracts for these workers.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. Temporary workers are employed on the basis of
seniority/suitability. The Company has not changed its
policy in this regard. To comply with the Terms of
Employment (Information) Act, 1994 the Company was
required to issue a written statement to each temporary
employee taken on, indicating the date of commencement
of the contract and the expected finishing date.
2. Where a third shift opportunity arises, it is the
practice to staff the shift as much as possible with
existing permanent employees. Temporary workers are
then recruited to positions vacated temporarily by
permanent employees and to other vacant positions.
Not all temporary workers are let go at the same time as
it can arise that extra temporary staff could be needed
in any of the three shops. In this regard an employee
might be retained while another employee with more
seniority could be let go. It would not be practical,
as proposed by the Union, to move temporary employees
between shops 1, 2 and 3 on the basis of seniority. It
would be costly and cumbersome to implement. It is the
Company's policy to recall temporary workers on the
basis of seniority with due regard to suitability.
RECOMMENDATION:
Having considered the submissions from the parties and noting the
Company's acceptance of the principle of seniority/suitability in
dealing with recruitment/lay-off of temporary workers the Court
has concluded that the Company's position is reasonable in the
circumstances and should be upheld.
The Court however recommends that for the purpose of pay only
cumulative service in the Company should be taken into account.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
29th June, 1995 Evelyn Owens
L.W./D.T. ____________
Chairman
Note
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to
Mr. Larry Wisely, Court Secretary.