Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD95587 Case Number: AD9618 Section / Act: S13(9) Parties: FINSA FOREST PRODUCTS LIMITED (Represented by IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION) - and - MARINE PORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION |
Appeal against Rights Commissioner's Recommendation No. CW 249/95.
Recommendation:
The Court, having considered the views of the parties in their
oral and written submissions, upholds the Rights Commissioner's
Recommendation and rejects the appeal of the Union.
The Court so decides.
Division: Mr McGrath Mr McHenry Mr Walsh
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD95587 APPEAL DECISION NO. AD1896
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 13(9), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969
PARTIES:
FINSA FOREST PRODUCTS LIMITED
(REPRESENTED BY IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION)
AND
MARINE PORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Appeal against Rights Commissioner's Recommendation No. CW
249/95.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Company produces particle board and value added board
products for the Irish and U.K. markets. It employs
approximately 150 workers.
The Company commenced the construction of a factory extension
in August, 1993, which necessitated the hiring of additional
workers. Ten "specified purpose contracts" were issued. The
contracts were initially for a fixed term, but they were
extended as work continued. After completion of the
construction work, some of the workers were retained. The
Company claims that it was clear that their employment was
temporary.
In November 1994, the Company's Production Manager informed
the Union of the need to terminate these contracts. It was
agreed to allow the workers to continue working until after
Christmas, 1994. On 5th April, 1995, the Managing Director
advised that the Company would require 31 redundancies from
the permanent workforce as part of a rationalisation plan (25
of these workers are members of the Union). All temporary
employees were to be let go immediately. The Company offered
compensation of 3 weeks' pay per year of service plus
statutory. The Union claims that 3 of the workers who were
given "specified purpose contracts" in August, 1993, were now
part of the permanent workforce and should be offered
voluntary redundancy or retained in employment. The Company
maintains that the employment of the 3 workers was temporary.
The dispute was referred to the Rights Commissioner and a
hearing took place on 7th September, 1995. The Rights
Commissioner's Recommendation is as follows:
"I recommend that the Union and the three workers
concerned accept their redundancy within four weeks and
that the Company offers the terms outlined in settlement
of this dispute."
The Union appealed the Recommendation to the Labour Court on
9th October, 1995, in accordance with Section 13(9),
Industrial Relations Act, 1969. A Labour Court hearing took
place on 14th February, 1996, in Limerick.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The "specified purpose contracts" expired in May, 1994,
approximately. Two of the three workers concerned
applied for jobs with the Company in July, 1994, and
were successful. The third worker has been employed on
the new plastic line for the last 18 months. The 3
workers are covered by the Comprehensive Work Agreement
with regard to permanent employment. A further
agreement at local level states that any worker who
exceeds 12 months in employment is considered a
permanent employee. The 3 workers are covered by both
these agreements.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The 3 workers were clearly employed on a temporary basis
for the specific purpose of constructing the new plant.
They were never part of the Company's permanent
workforce. The Company would not have retained them as
permanent as they were not suited to its ongoing
requirements.
2. In November, 1994, the workers were retained as a
gesture of goodwill over the Christmas period. The
Company should not be penalised for doing this. The
Company is involved in a very competitive market and
cannot afford the cost of paying redundancy to 3 workers
who do not qualify for it.
DECISION:
The Court, having considered the views of the parties in their
oral and written submissions, upholds the Rights Commissioner's
Recommendation and rejects the appeal of the Union.
The Court so decides.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
12th March, 1996 Tom McGrath
C.O'N./S.G. _______________
Deputy Chairman