Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD95107 Case Number: LCR14822 Section / Act: S20(1) Parties: GUINNESS (IRELAND) LIMITED - and - 2 WORKERS;MS IRENE DUNNE |
Compensation for loss of employment.
Recommendation:
The Court has considered carefully the written and oral
submissions of both parties.
The Court recommends that, since this case involves dismissals of
temporary staff subsequent to the Act of 1st October, 1993, the
Company should treat the two claimants on the same basis as those
staff dismissed in September, 1994 in this case.
Division: Ms Owens Mr Pierce Mr Rorke
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD95107 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR14822
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 20(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969
PARTIES:
GUINNESS (IRELAND) LIMITED
AND
2 WORKERS
SUBJECT:
1. Compensation for loss of employment.
BACKGROUND:
2. 1. The Company has launched a rationalisation programme,
entitled `Plan 2000' in conjunction with the Trade
Unions. The programme involves the reduction of six
hundred staff. Because of the scale of job reductions
involved the Company put a moratorium on recruitment.
Temporary staff were hired from agencies and released as
required.
2. As negotiations became protracted, the Company decided
to set up a panel of temporary staff to meet its
requirements and invited all agency staff assigned to it
to sit a series of tests for the panel. The two workers
involved in this dispute declined to take the tests.
3. Following the tests, forty agency staff were selected
for a two year fixed term contract to operate from 26th
September, 1994. Those who were not successful in
securing a contract were offered `Bonus Bonds' worth
between #500 and #1,000 by the Company. The Bonus Bonds
only applied to those retained up to September, 1994.
4. The two temporary workers in this dispute, who were
dismissed when their contracts expired in January, 1994
and April, 1994 respectively, did not receive Bonus
Bonds when they left the Company.
5. The Company objected to a Rights Commissioner
investigating the dispute. The two workers then
requested that the dispute be referred to the Labour
Court under Section 20(1) of the Industrial Relations
Act, 1969. The workers agreed to be bound by the
decision of the Court. The Court investigated the
dispute on 23rd June, 1995.
WORKERS' ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The two workers were employed by the Company through an
employment agency and commenced work on 9th April, 1990
and 7th May, 1990 respectively. They were dismissed on
7th January, 1994 and 29th April, 1994 respectively.
The workers claim that they were treated less favourably
than other agency staff. Agency staff who were
dismissed in September, 1994 received compensation of
#500 and #1,000 depending on length of service. The
workers claim that they should have received #1,000
compensation each based on their service with the
Company. Both workers were informed by their manager
that all temporary workers would be treated equally
irrespective of their finishing dates.
2. The Unfair Dismissals (Amendment) Act, 1993 came into
effect on 1st October, 1993. The Act gave protection to
temporary staff who worked continually for one year for
a third party from that date. It would have provided
them with the protection of the 1976 Unfair Dismissals
Act. The Company dismissed the temporary workers rather
than allow them to attain full employment rights on 1st
October, 1994.
3. It is not acceptable that the Company should compensate
workers who were dismissed in September, 1994 while
those dismissed a few months earlier received nothing.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The two workers concerned were invited to sit the tests
to afford them the opportunity of further employment
with the Company. Both workers declined to do so. A
panel of forty temporary staff was selected for a two
year fixed term assignment to operate from 26th
September, 1994. Those who were not successful in
securing employment were offered Bonus Bonds by the
Company. The awarding of Bonus Bonds, which was a
discretionary gesture on the part of the Company, was
confined to temporary workers retained up until
September, 1994.
2. A total of thirty temporary staff were scheduled to
leave the Company in September, 1994. The Company
recognised that it would be difficult for these workers
to secure immediate employment with other employers. It
decided, as a matter of goodwill, to award them Bonus
Bonds for the personal dislocation involved. The Bonus
Bonds did not apply to the two workers in this dispute,
as they had already left the Company some months
previously.
3. The Company does not consider itself under any
obligation to extend the award to these two workers. To
have done so would have been contested by previous
temporary staff, many of whom had as much if not more
service than the two employees.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court has considered carefully the written and oral
submissions of both parties.
The Court recommends that, since this case involves dismissals of
temporary staff subsequent to the Act of 1st October, 1993, the
Company should treat the two claimants on the same basis as those
staff dismissed in September, 1994 in this case.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
12th July, 1995 Evelyn Owens
L.W./D.T. ____________
Chairman
Note
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to
Mr. Larry Wisely, Court Secretary.