Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD95267 Case Number: LCR14821 Section / Act: S20(1) Parties: HENRY O'ROURKE LIMITED - and - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION |
Re-engagement of eight workers.
Recommendation:
4. The Court notes that the Company informed the Court prior to
the hearing that they would not be attending, which is
regrettable.
Having considered the written and oral submissions of the Union
the Court is of the view that the Company acted unfairly in not
offering employment to the workers following the lay-off which
would have been considered normal practice.
The Court, therefore, recommends that the Company take the workers
back into employment with immediate effect.
Division: Ms Owens Mr Pierce Mr Rorke
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD95267 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR14821
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 20(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969
PARTIES: HENRY O'ROURKE LIMITED
and
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Re-engagement of eight workers.
BACKGROUND:
2. 1. The workers concerned were employed by the Company as
plant operators on the construction of the Drumsna
by-pass near Carrick-on-Shannon from March, 1994, to
October, 1994.
2. In September, 1994, a dispute concerning the workers
entitlements under the Construction Industry R.E.A.
resulted in a 3 day stoppage of work. The workers
joined the Union at that time. A local agreement
reached between the Company and shop stewards led to
all matters being resolved and normal work resumed.
3. The workers' employment was terminated at the end of
October, 1994 (winter lay-off). The Union claims that
the winter lay-off was effected in a biased manner,
almost all unionised employees were laid-off.
4. Local level discussions took place at which the Company
referred to the winter lay-off as 'normal'. It refused
to give an undertaking to re-engage the workers after
the winter lay-off. An invitation to attend at a
conciliation conference at the Labour Relations
Commission was declined by the Company and the Union
referred the matter to the Labour Court on 13th April,
1995 under Section 20(1) of the Industrial Relations
Act, 1969. The Union agreed to be bound by the Court's
recommendation. A Labour Court hearing took place in
Cavan on 20th June, 1995. Prior to the Court hearing
the Company informed the Court that it would not be
attending the Court hearing.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The workers have been treated unfairly by the Company.
They worked for approximately 8 months during which
time they received no complaints from management
regarding their work.
2. The workers were employed to work on the construction
of the by-pass. It was their understanding that they
would be engaged until the construction of the by-pass
was completed.
3. The workers concerned have not been considered for
employment following the winter lay-off. The Company
chose to recruit new employees. It is the worker's
view that they have been victimised by management
because they are members of the Union.
RECOMMENDATION:
4. The Court notes that the Company informed the Court prior to
the hearing that they would not be attending, which is
regrettable.
Having considered the written and oral submissions of the Union
the Court is of the view that the Company acted unfairly in not
offering employment to the workers following the lay-off which
would have been considered normal practice.
The Court, therefore, recommends that the Company take the workers
back into employment with immediate effect.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
13th July, 1995 Evelyn Owens
F.B./U.S. ____________
Chairman
NOTE:
ENQUIRIES CONCERNING THIS RECOMMENDATION SHOULD BE ADDRESSED TO
MR FRAN BRENNAN, COURT SECRETARY