Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD95228 Case Number: LCR14749 Section / Act: S26(1) Parties: DELPHI PACKARD ELECTRIC SYSTEMS (THE IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS CONFEDERATION) - and - AMALGAMATED TRANSPORT GENERAL WORKERS' UNION;SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION |
Dispute concerning a number of laid-off workers.
Recommendation:
That the Unions have felt it necessary to bring this case to the
Labour Court at this time is a reflection of the difficulties
which the Company has been through in recent times.
However, the Unions' case is largely based on commitments and
understandings of what the labour force would be in 1995. This
commitment was given prior to the rejection of Labour Court
Recommendation No. LCR14640. Insofar as the Court has been made
aware, the question of the date on which the members concerned in
this case were to resume work was not raised at the discussions
which followed that recommendation, nor is there any reference to
it in the agreement made between the parties at that time.
The Court is satisfied that commitments made by the Company in
regard to re-employment dates were made against the expectation
that a certain contract would be awarded to Tallaght. When that
contract was lost, the Company could only be expected to employ,
or re-employ, the numbers necessary to meet the contracts which it
did obtain. Further, the Court was made aware at the hearing that
some of those contracts would be coming to an end shortly. In
light of that information and in the absence of the specific
information which the Court sought at the hearing as to the future
work-load at the plant, the Court is unable to recommend in favour
of the claim as made.
However, the Court recommends that the way in which the claimants
in this case are dealt with in regard to re-employment, continued
lay-off or redundancy should be consistent with the application of
any further lay-offs, redundancy or short-time working, involving
those currently employed, when the future work-load for the plant
is known.
Division: Ms Owens Mr McHenry Mr Walsh
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD95228 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR14749
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990
PARTIES:
DELPHI PACKARD ELECTRIC SYSTEMS
(REPRESENTED BY THE IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS CONFEDERATION)
AND
AMALGAMATED TRANSPORT GENERAL WORKERS' UNION
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Dispute concerning a number of laid-off workers.
BACKGROUND:
2. 1. The Company is part of the General Motors Corporation
and produces wiring harnesses for the automotive
industry. It employs 860 workers at its Tallaght plant.
2. In May, 1994, the Company lost the contract to produce
the 'T-Car harness'. This loss of contract led to a
loss of #10m. in sales and the lay-off of 190 workers.
By January, 1995, when the Company and Unions agreed a
cost-reduction programme, 42 workers remained on lay-
off. Since May, 1994, 15 workers on lay-off have been
made redundant.
3. On 19th May, 1994, the parties agreed inter-alia that
should the workers on lay-off not have been recalled by
June/July 1995 at the latest that voluntary redundancy
terms would be negotiated. In December, 1994, a cost-
reduction package was put to the workers which
guaranteed no lay-offs during 1995 and that the workers
on lay-off would be recalled by 1st April, 1995. The
recall date was in line with a commitment, in a separate
agreement, given by the Company in writing on 13th
October, 1994 (details supplied). The cost- reduction
package was rejected by the workers. A subsequent
agreement between the parties did not refer to the issue
of lay-offs.
4. The Unions pursued a claim for a redundancy package for
volunteers at the previous level of 5 weeks pay per year
of service plus statutory entitlements. The workers on
lay-off could return to work to fill vacancies. The
Company rejected the Unions' claim and it was referred
to the Labour Relations Commission.
5. A conciliation conference was held on 3rd April, 1995.
At conciliation, the Company agreed that it had made the
commitment of a recall on 1st April, 1995, but it was
unable to take the workers back due to loss of work.
The Company could not afford a redundancy programme at
the previous level. It was not possible to make any
progress at conciliation and on 4th April, 1995, the
dispute was referred to the Labour Court. The Court
investigated the dispute on 13th April, 1995.
UNIONS' ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Company entered an agreement with the Unions that it
would recall the laid-off workers by 1st April, 1995.
It was further agreed that if it was not possible to
recall the workers that negotiations would commence on a
voluntary redundancy package.
2. As the recall date has now passed, a voluntary
redundancy programme should be negotiated. The
Company's rejection of the agreement, which was freely
entered into, worsens the industrial relations climate.
The Company should be conscious of the great sacrifices
endured by its workforce in the most recent
restructuring agreement.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. At present the Company is not in a position to say what
contracts, if any, it will secure for the rest of the
year. The Company has already informed the Unions that
a further lay-off of workers is inevitable.
2. The Company's objective is to reduce its costs to 27DM/
hour and thereby secure more contracts. It would be
wrong at this time to offer a voluntary redundancy
package to workers which it may require in the near
future. The Company's financial position will not allow
it to pay any ex-gratia sums to its workers.
RECOMMENDATION:
That the Unions have felt it necessary to bring this case to the
Labour Court at this time is a reflection of the difficulties
which the Company has been through in recent times.
However, the Unions' case is largely based on commitments and
understandings of what the labour force would be in 1995. This
commitment was given prior to the rejection of Labour Court
Recommendation No. LCR14640. Insofar as the Court has been made
aware, the question of the date on which the members concerned in
this case were to resume work was not raised at the discussions
which followed that recommendation, nor is there any reference to
it in the agreement made between the parties at that time.
The Court is satisfied that commitments made by the Company in
regard to re-employment dates were made against the expectation
that a certain contract would be awarded to Tallaght. When that
contract was lost, the Company could only be expected to employ,
or re-employ, the numbers necessary to meet the contracts which it
did obtain. Further, the Court was made aware at the hearing that
some of those contracts would be coming to an end shortly. In
light of that information and in the absence of the specific
information which the Court sought at the hearing as to the future
work-load at the plant, the Court is unable to recommend in favour
of the claim as made.
However, the Court recommends that the way in which the claimants
in this case are dealt with in regard to re-employment, continued
lay-off or redundancy should be consistent with the application of
any further lay-offs, redundancy or short-time working, involving
those currently employed, when the future work-load for the plant
is known.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
2nd May, 1995 Evelyn Owens
J.F./M.M. ____________
Chairman
Note
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to
Mr. Jerome Forde, Court Secretary.