Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD95458 Case Number: AD9566 Section / Act: S13(9) Parties: COILLTE TEORANTA - and - 3 WORKERS;MICHAEL MCDARBY & CO. SOLICITORS |
Appeal against Rights Commissioner's Recommendation No. ST143/95 concerning the transfer of 3 workers.
Recommendation:
Having considered the submissions from the parties and taking into
account the evidence presented the Court has concluded that the
Rights Commissioner's Recommendation dealt with the dispute in as
reasonable a way as possible in the circumstances.
The Court accordingly upholds the recommendation and rejects the
appeal.
The Court so decides.
Division: Ms Owens Mr Keogh Ms Ni Mhurchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD95458 APPEAL DECISION NO. AD6695
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 13(9), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969
PARTIES:
COILLTE TEORANTA
AND
3 WORKERS
(REPRESENTED BY MICHAEL MCDARBY & CO. SOLICITORS)
SUBJECT:
1. Appeal against Rights Commissioner's Recommendation No.
ST143/95 concerning the transfer of 3 workers.
BACKGROUND:
2. Coillte Teoranta was established as a State Company in 1989
to conduct state forestry and associated business.
The three workers concerned were formerly employed by the
Company as operatives at its sawmills in Cong, County Mayo.
In March, 1994 the workers were re-deployed to the Cong
forests as part of the Company's rationalisation plan for the
Cong sawmill.
The workers claimed that they had been unfairly selected for
re-deployment and referred the matter to a Rights
Commissioner for investigation and recommendation. The
Rights Commissioner's findings and recommendation are as
follows:-
"Findings
1. I think that the claimants have to realise that the
mill was in a serious trading position for a number
of years with very little investment until 1991.
New systems of team work were introduced but to
little avail. The position was compounded by a
fall in demand for timber and consequential
reductions in the price ex mills. The 1994
rationalisation seems to have turned the mill
around somewhat and in my view it would not be
prudent to upset the present arrangement.
2. Having said that, it is perfectly clear to me that
the claimants to a man feel that they have been
slighted in the community and that somehow it is
perceived locally that thy were not diligent in
their application to their work in the mill and
accordingly had to be moved out. In my view
nothing could be further from the truth. However
how can they be reassured of their worth to the
enterprise and their neighbours assured that they
have it all wrong? I do not know how this can be
done short of their return to the mill now, which
in my view is just not possible.
3. I might also ask, that had they taken up the
voluntary redundancy offer would that also have
caused the same stir locally? I would think not.
They should remember that they have jobs on agreed
national rates of pay and conditions of employment
in an area where jobs of any kind are few and far
between. They now have continuity of employment
which many workers in industry now lack, despite
the best efforts of their Unions. I think that
they might consider these points before getting
upset at what the neighbours mights think.
Recommendation
I am afraid that I cannot recommend a return to sawmills
duties for all the claimants in all the circumstances
prevailing at present. However I do recommend that they
are considered on the basis of merit and suitability for
any full time permanent post which may arise in future
in the Cong sawmill. The return of even one of the
claimants would certainly give the lie to local
speculation on their transfers out of the mill.
The Rights Commissioner's Recommendation was appealed by the
workers to the Labour Court on 4th August, 1995 under Section
13(9) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969. A Labour Court
hearing took place in Galway on 13th September, 1995.
WORKER'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. No consultation took place between the wrokers and
management prior to the re-deployment. The process of
selection did not consider the employment records of the
workers. Management contravened the terms of the
workers contracts implied by custom and practice, of
last in, first out.
2. The workers have been employed in the sawmill since the
late 1970's and are among the most experienced sawyers
employed by the Company.
3. Management has recruited new employees to perform work
previously carried out by the workers concerned.
4. The workers received no complaints from management
regarding their work and at all times considered
themselves conscientious employees.
5. The re-deployment has caused considerable stress and
embarrassment and the workers consider that they are
being forced to take voluntary redundancy.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The re-deployment process was necessitated and motivated
by the Company's efforts to maintain Cong sawmill, which
has a history of loss making, and was not way a personal
reflection on any individual. The alternative to the
course pursued would have been to close the mill,
resulting in compulsory redundancy for all concerned.
2. The selection by management of the staff to remain in
the mill had to have regard to ensuring that the mill
was afforded the best possible opportunity to achieve
viability in the future.
3. The turnaround achieved in the performance of the mill
since the rationalisation has been acknowledged by the
Rights Commissioner in his findings, in which he
expresses the view that it would not be prudent to upset
the present arrangement.
DECISION:
Having considered the submissions from the parties and taking into
account the evidence presented the Court has concluded that the
Rights Commissioner's Recommendation dealt with the dispute in as
reasonable a way as possible in the circumstances.
The Court accordingly upholds the recommendation and rejects the
appeal.
The Court so decides.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
25th September, 1995 Evelyn Owens
F.B./D.T. ____________
Chairman