Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD9629 Case Number: LCR15094 Section / Act: S26(1) Parties: LAING - PAUL SITE AT TALLAGHT HOSPITAL (Represented by THE CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY FEDERATION) - and - BUILDING AND ALLIED TRADES UNION |
1. Method of selection for redundancy. 2. Company's failure to consult with the Union in advance. 3. Compensation for unfair selection.
Recommendation:
The Court has considered all of the issues raised by the parties
in their oral and written submissions and has examined the
documentation made available.
The Court finds that the Company was fully aware that redundancies
would be required, yet they failed to consult with the workers or
their representatives in any meaningful way.
Further, the Court finds that they (the Company) decided on
criteria for evaluation of employees without any reference of
their criteria to the workers or their representatives.
It is the view of the Court that the above actions by the Company
were not conducive to the maintenance of a stable industrial
relations environment, but the Court accepts that they were taken
in an attempt by the Company to ensure that work would continue on
site without interruption until the relevant sections had been
completed.
In so far as the redundancies themselves are concerned, the 1976
Agreement provides that in dismissal cases it is the prerogative
of the employer to take a decision in any particular case.
Accordingly, in view of the provisions of this agreement, the
Court finds that the dismissal by way of redundancy of the workers
concerned was not unreasonable.
Division: Mr McGrath Mr McHenry Ms Ni Mhurchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD9629 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR15094
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990
PARTIES:
LAING - PAUL SITE AT TALLAGHT HOSPITAL
(REPRESENTED BY THE CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY FEDERATION)
AND
BUILDING AND ALLIED TRADES UNION
SUBJECT:
1. 1. Method of selection for redundancy.
2. Company's failure to consult with the Union in advance.
3. Compensation for unfair selection.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Company is the main contractor for the Tallaght Hospital
development and employs over 100 workers directly and 500
indirectly through sub-contracting. In early December, 1995
it employed 40 bricklayers and 7 apprentice bricklayers on
site, but on the 21st of December, 1995 24 bricklayers were
made redundant.
The Union disputes the need for redundancies, the selection
procedures used by the Company and the failure to consult
with the Union in advance. The Company implemented a
Redundancy Selection Analysis of the bricklayers on site
under the headings:- Performance, Service, Attendance and
Location. The workers with the highest ratings were retained
in employment. The Union argues that if redundancies were
necessary it should have been on the basis of last in - first
out. It also contends that there was no indication of
impending redundancies, while the Company states that local
shop stewards were informed in October, 1995 that the brick
work was nearing completion and that the Company would
endeavour to employ the workers until the Christmas holiday.
The Union claims that the Company's deliberate decision not
to consult with the Union in advance denied the workers the
right to make representations on their own behalf. They
should therefore be either re-instated or compensated.
The dispute was the subject of a conciliation conference
under the auspices of the Labour Relations Commission on 12th
January, 1996. Agreement could not be reached and the Union
requested referral to the Labour Court in accordance with
Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. The
Court investigated the dispute on 6th February, 1996.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Company has failed to establish that a genuine
redundancy situation existed on 21st December, 1995.
There was still a considerable amount of brickwork to be
done and further contracts were expected to come on
stream in the near future. There was no indication that
redundancies were imminent before Easter, 1996.
2. The Redundancy Selection Analysis document has no
standing in the industry. The workers have a right to
know how they were selected for redundancy yet the
Company refuses to allow them access to the findings.
3. All bricklayers were paid on bonus and therefore must
have attained the high standards of skill and speed
required by Management. No written warnings were
received concerning performance or attendance records. A
worker's location on site was determined by Management
and was therefore outside the worker's control. The
remaining factor was length of service, yet the majority
of those dismissed were among the longest serving
workers.
4. From a total of 24 workers who were dismissed, 14 were
involved in a previous industrial dispute concerning
bonus rates, from January, 1995 to April, 1995. The
workers concerned feel that they have now been victimised
as a result of this industrial action.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. Local shop stewards were informed of the pending
redundancy situation in October, 1995 and that the
Company would try to keep the workers in employment until
Christmas, 1995. It was obvious to all on site that the
block work was almost completed.
2. The Union's proposal of last in - first out does not
apply in the construction industry where the employer has
the right of selection. This practice was formally
recognised in Clause 5 of the Industrial Relations
Agreement of 1976 and has been upheld by the Employment
Appeals Tribunal on numerous occasions.
3. It has never been the practice to consult formally with
trade union officials as a construction site nears
completion.
4. The Company carried out a very detailed analysis of all
the workers to enable selection to be made on a fair and
equitable basis. Seniority was one issue which was taken
into account and the workers with the highest overall
scores remained on site. Several workers who were
involved in the previous unofficial industrial action
were retained in employment therefore there can be no
question of victimisation.
5. The Company has complied with all established procedures
in the selection for redundancies and has shown
exceptional goodwill in regard to payments in lieu of
notice.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court has considered all of the issues raised by the parties
in their oral and written submissions and has examined the
documentation made available.
The Court finds that the Company was fully aware that redundancies
would be required, yet they failed to consult with the workers or
their representatives in any meaningful way.
Further, the Court finds that they (the Company) decided on
criteria for evaluation of employees without any reference of
their criteria to the workers or their representatives.
It is the view of the Court that the above actions by the Company
were not conducive to the maintenance of a stable industrial
relations environment, but the Court accepts that they were taken
in an attempt by the Company to ensure that work would continue on
site without interruption until the relevant sections had been
completed.
In so far as the redundancies themselves are concerned, the 1976
Agreement provides that in dismissal cases it is the prerogative
of the employer to take a decision in any particular case.
Accordingly, in view of the provisions of this agreement, the
Court finds that the dismissal by way of redundancy of the workers
concerned was not unreasonable.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
8th March, 1996 Tom McGrath
D.G./S.G. ____________________
Deputy Chairman
Note
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to
Ms. Dympna Greene, Court Secretary.