Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD95634 Case Number: LCR15069 Section / Act: S26(1) Parties: NOVUM OVERSEAS LIMITED (Represented by THE IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS CONFEDERATION) - and - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION |
Claim by the Union for amendment of the agreement concerning temporary workers in relation to:- (1) Continuous service. (2) Lay-off. (3) Claim for compensation in respect of Christmas leave arrangements.
Recommendation:
The Court, having considered the submissions made by the parties
makes the following recommendations:-
1. In determining continuous service, any lay-off of two weeks
or less should be disregarded.
2. The present arrangements on selection for lay-offs to be
continued.
3. Taking into account all the issues surrounding the Christmas
1994 issue, one day's extra leave to be given to the affected
employees on a once-off basis.
Division: Mr Flood Mr Keogh Mr Walsh
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD95634 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR15069
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990
PARTIES:
NOVUM OVERSEAS LIMITED
(REPRESENTED BY THE IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS CONFEDERATION)
AND
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Claim by the Union for amendment of the agreement concerning
temporary workers in relation to:-
(1) Continuous service.
(2) Lay-off.
(3) Claim for compensation in respect of Christmas leave
arrangements.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Company manufactures refrigeration products for the
export market and employs 190 workers including 8 temporary
workers.
CLAIM 1 - CONTINUOUS SERVICE
In November, 1993 the parties concluded an agreement in
respect of the introduction of temporary workers which
provides that after twelve months continuous service a worker
will be made permanent. The Union claims that a worker
should be made permanent after twelve months cumulative
service.
CLAIM 2 - LAY-OFF
The agreement provides that temporary workers will be let go
on the basis of 'last in first out' on a departmental basis.
The Union claims that the 'last in first out' provision
should be implemented on a plant-wide basis.
CLAIM 3 - CHRISTMAS LEAVE COMPENSATION
Arrangements for Christmas leave were finalised in October,
1994. The Company required production to continue over the
Christmas period. On the 15th December, 1994 management
indicated that a shut-down was required over a three day
period previously earmarked for production. Workers were
offered the choice of lay-off or annual leave. The Union
maintained that this forced workers to take unplanned leave
at short notice and submitted a claim for three extra days
annual leave.
The Company rejected the claims. The dispute was referred to
the Labour Relations Commission and conciliation conferences
were held on the 14th March and 3rd July, 1995. Agreement
was not possible and the dispute was referred to the Labour
Court on the 7th November, 1995. A Court hearing was held on
the 15th January, 1996.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
CLAIM 1
3. 1. Continuous service is widely understood in the context
of industrial relations to mean that service is
preserved unless the contract is broken by dismissal or
resignation. Temporary periods of absence from work do
not have the effect of breaking continuity.
2. It was never envisaged that workers would have to remain
on the pay-roll for the full twelve months before
attaining permanency. All that is required is that
workers' service remain intact for twelve months.
3. Given the nature of the Company's business short periods
of lay-off are often resorted to. If these were to have
the effect of breaking service few, if any, workers
would attain permanency.
4. The Union proposes that lay-off up to a period of six
months should not break service. It would not be
computable as continuous service. This would afford
permanency to workers who accrue aggregate service of
twelve months provided that no period of lay-off
exceeded six months. This proposal is consistent with
the spirit and intent of the agreement.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Union's position is unrealistic and completely
ignores the reason behind the requirement to utilise
temporary workers. Business and demand is seasonal.
The Company operates with a number of labour and
transport cost disadvantages. It is essential that the
Company has the facility to employ temporary workers to
meet production peaks required to service customers.
2. The Company cannot retain workers if there is no work
for them or carry a higher number of permanent
employees. The amendment sought by the Union would
require the Company to make employees permanent and
subsequently lay them off. This situation has occurred
within the existing agreement. Management contends that
the twelve month continuous rule is probably too
stringent for the markets in which the Company operates.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
CLAIM 2
5. 1. The application of the agreement in practical terms
means that workers with relatively long service can be
subjected to lay-off in preference to those with shorter
service. This contrasts with arrangements for permanent
workers where lay-off is implemented on a plant-wide
seniority basis. Selection by department is inherently
unfair and the system as used for permanent workers
should be applied to temporary workers.
2. The Union does not accept that increased costs would
result from the implementation of plant-wide seniority.
Workers are interchangeable and the training requirement
is minimal. The claim is not precluded under the
Programme for Competitiveness and Work (PCW) as it is
not a claim for improvement in pay or conditions of
employment.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
6. 1. The purpose of this provision in the agreement is to
enable management to retain trained personnel in the
required areas when the demand for production in other
areas decreases. This is essential to enable the
Company maintain the highest possible level of
efficiency.
2. If the Company were to accede to the Union's request
there would be very substantial inefficiencies and a
substantial increase in costs, ultimately leading to a
decrease in employment levels.
3. The claim is cost-increasing and is precluded under the
terms of the PCW.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
CLAIM 3
7. 1. The Company's decision, to unilaterally introduce a
three-day closedown at Christmas 1994 without adequate
notice, was unacceptable and in breach of the agreement
on Christmas leave.
2. Many workers had already made other arrangements for
Christmas leave. The alternative offered by the Company
was to implement lay-off thus breaking the service of
temporary staff, some of whom were approaching
permanency.
3. While the workforce agreed to take holidays, under
protest, they are entitled to three days leave as
compensation.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
8. 1. The Company had no alternative but to close down for
three days as an order which was expected did not
materialise leading to a substantial reduction in the
work requirement. Management offered three days
holidays to workers as the only other option was
lay-off. There was no overall loss to workers as their
decision to accept holidays had the obvious advantage of
ensuring payment for those days.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court, having considered the submissions made by the parties
makes the following recommendations:-
1. In determining continuous service, any lay-off of two weeks
or less should be disregarded.
2. The present arrangements on selection for lay-offs to be
continued.
3. Taking into account all the issues surrounding the Christmas
1994 issue, one day's extra leave to be given to the affected
employees on a once-off basis.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
31st January, 1996 Finbarr Flood
T.O'D./D.T. _______________
Deputy Chairman
Note
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to
Mr. Tom O'Dea, Court Secretary.