Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD96127 Case Number: LCR15159 Section / Act: S26(1) Parties: ZOE DEVELOPMENTS LIMITED (Represented by THE CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY FEDERATION) - and - BUILDING AND ALLIED TRADES UNION |
Alleged unfair dismissal.
Recommendation:
The Court, having considered the written and oral submissions made
by the parties, finds that the manner of dismissal of the
claimants was unsatisfactory. No satisfactory evidence was
provided to indicate that they had refused to transfer.
The Court recommends that the Company pay the individuals a sum of
£1500 compensation, pro rata for apprentices, and that the Company
undertake to re-employ the claimants, if and when suitable
vacancies arise.
Division: Mr Flood Mr Pierce Mr Rorke
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD96127 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR15159
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990
PARTIES:
ZOE DEVELOPMENTS LIMITED
(REPRESENTED BY THE CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY FEDERATION)
AND
BUILDING AND ALLIED TRADES UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Alleged unfair dismissal.
BACKGROUND:
2. The dispute concerns 6 workers (4 bricklayers and 2
apprentice bricklayers) who were employed on the Company's
North Brunswick Street site on the 29th January, 1996. They
had been employed for the previous week on other sites
operated by the Company. In the late afternoon of the 29th
January 1996 the workers were told by Management that,
because of a lack of work at the Brunsmick Street site, they
were being transferred temporarily to other sites. The Union
claimed that there was sufficient work available at the
Brunswick Street site. When the workers reported to the site
on 30th January they were dismissed. The Union claimed that
the dismissals were unfair. Management rejected the claim.
The dispute was referred to the Labour Relations Commission
and a conciliation conference was held on the 4th March,
1996. Agreement was not possible and the dispute was
referred to the Labour Court on the 13th March 1996. A Court
hearing was held on the 23rd April 1996.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. On Monday 29th January the workers approached Management
and requested to be employed on a direct labour basis as
they did not wish to be employed on a contract basis.
They were requested to transfer to other sites after
finishing time on the 29th January.
2. The Union totally rejects Management's claim that the
workers refused to transfer to other sites. They
reported to the Brunswick Street site on the 30th of
January to collect their tools and to consult with their
Union. The workers did not mind being transferred and
had done so on many occasions in the past. They wanted
clarification as to when work would again be available
at Brunswick Street.
3. At subsequent discussions the Company stated that
long-serving bricklayers had first choice for
re-employment. The Union accepted the situation but
wanted the 6 workers restarted once the company honoured
its commitment to their other workers. The Union
maintains that the Company has employed new bricklayers
at the site.
4. The problems arose at the Brunswick Street site for the
6 workers concerned when they produced their P45's and
requested to be employed on a P.A.Y.E. basis as is their
entitlement under the R.E.A.
5. The workers were unfairly and arbitrarily dismissed.
The Union seeks appropriate compensation and the
reinstatement of the workers.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The workers were informed on the 29th January that there
was no requirement for bricklayers on the site for
approximately 4 weeks because there had been a lack of
concrete poured the previous week, groundworks were not
sufficiently advanced, and bricklayers were more
urgently required on other sites. They were told to
transfer to other sites with effect from 30th January.
2. The claimants were dismissed for refusing to take
reasonable instructions. Site transfer is a part and
parcel of work in the Construction Industry. The
claimants did not report for work at other sites on 30th
January as requested. If they had complaints about the
Brunswick Street site or Management's request to
transfer, they should have worked under protest and
processed their grievance in the normal way.
3. The Company had absolutely no problem with the workers'
request to be employed on a direct labour basis. The
Company employs 190 workers on a P.A.Y.E. basis.
4. The claimants were employed on a probationary period.
All had just over one week's service. In these
circumstances termination of employment was at the
discretion of Management.
5. Brunswick Street site recommenced employing bricklayers
on the 1st March. Eight bricklayers are employed there.
They were transferred from other sites. No new
bricklayers were employed.
6. An essential element of any contract of employment in
the Construction Industry is that workers transfer from
site to site. The claimants refused direct
Management instructions to transfer. They reneged on
their contracts resulting in the termination of their
employment.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court, having considered the written and oral submissions made
by the parties, finds that the manner of dismissal of the
claimants was unsatisfactory. No satisfactory evidence was
provided to indicate that they had refused to transfer.
The Court recommends that the Company pay the individuals a sum of
£1500 compensation, pro rata for apprentices, and that the Company
undertake to re-employ the claimants, if and when suitable
vacancies arise.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
9th May, 1996 Finbarr Flood
T.O'D./S.G. ----------------
Deputy Chairman
Note
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to
Mr. Tom O'Dea, Court Secretary.