FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : STAFFORD AND MITCHELL LIMITED - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Flood Employer Member: Mr Brennan Worker Member: Mr Rorke |
1. Claim on behalf of 5 workers for compensation in respect of short-time working.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Company is a family footwear wholesale business supplying the independent retail trade throughout the country. In December, 1996, prior to the Christmas holidays the Company advised the workers it was implementing short-time working because of a downturn in business. In January 1997, the Company implemented the short-time working. The Union submitted a claim for payment equivalent to 3 days (£650) in respect of the workers concerned. The Company rejected the claim. The dispute was referred to the Labour Relations Commission and a conciliation conference was held on the 10th April, 1997. Agreement was not possible and the dispute was referred to the Labour Court by the Labour Relations Commission on the 9th May, 1997. A Court hearing was held on the 30th June, 1997.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The workers concerned were given one hour's notice of the Company's decision to place them on short-time working. They were due to go on leave at 12 noon and were advised at 11.00 a.m. of the Company's decision. The Company's approach is in breach of normal procedures and its failure to consult with the Union in advance of an announcement is unacceptable.
2. The workload of the employees concerned has increased yet staff levels have been reduced. The workers have lost 3 days Social Welfare payments and their loss is £650.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Company's business has suffered a dramatic downturn over the past 3 years due to significant competition from the UK. The Company has traded at a substantial loss (details to the Court).
2. Brand awareness is becoming so critical that leading brands are now selling direct to the retailer. This has resulted in a 20% loss of turnover and a reduction of sales and warehouse staff.
3. Approximately 70% of business is now contracted into two specific periods i.e.
March/April and August/October.
4. The Company had no option but to implement a 3-day week commencing on 6th January 1997. Notice was given to staff on the 20th December, 1996. Management felt it was preferable to lay-off.
5. The Company endeavoured to sustain full employment throughout the rest of the year. Management accepts that hardship was caused but the Company had no alternative. Staff had been placed on short-time working in similar circumstances in the past without claims being made.
6. Despite its financial problems the Company has paid all National Wage agreements and paid a full week's wages (by way of a Christmas Bonus) to staff in December.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court having considered all aspects of this case recommends, without precedent, payment by the Employer of one day's pay to the claimants in full and final settlement.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Finbarr Flood
14th July, 1997______________________
T.O'D./S.G.Deputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Tom O'Dea, Court Secretary.