FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : PJ HEGARTY & SONS (REPRESENTED BY THE CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY FEDERATION) - AND - BUILDING AND ALLIED TRADES UNION (B.A.T.U.) DIVISION : Chairman: Ms Owens Employer Member: Mr Pierce Worker Member: Ms Ni Mhurchu |
1. Re-employment arrangements.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Company is a nation-wide building, civil engineering, piling and geotechnical contracting company which employs approximately 550 staff. At the completion of a building contract at Dublin City University (DCU) in September, 1997, twenty six bricklayers were made redundant. The Union claimed that a genuine redundancy situation did not exist and that the workers concerned should have been placed on lay-off. The Company refused to place the workers on lay-off on the basis of the custom and practice in the industry. However, it agreed in writing to favourably consider the bricklayers who were employed on the DCU site when employing workers in the future. The Union rejected the Company's "letter of comfort" and is seeking to establish an agreed panel of bricklayers who will be re-employed on all future contracts.
The issue was the subject of local discussions and of a conciliation conference under the auspices of the Labour Relations Commission on the 3rd of February, 1998. As agreement was not possible the dispute was referred to the Labour Court on the 4th of March, 1998, in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. The Court investigated the dispute on the 13th of May, 1998, the earliest date suitable to the parties.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Union wishes to enter into an agreement with the Company which will provide some protection and job security for the members who have been employed, and are currently employed, by the Company.
2. The present situation where workers are dismissed at the end of each contract with no guarantee of future employment hinders them from making vital decisions regarding their futures.
3. The Union has entered into agreements with many of the Company's competitors to place workers on temporary lay-off when work is not available or to give the workers a written commitment regarding future employment.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. It is standard custom and practice within the industry that employees are made redundant when work on a site is completed. The Registered Employment Agreement for the construction industry clearly states that dismissal or termination of employment is the prerogative of the employer.
2. A lay-off system is impractical as no construction company could guarantee re-employment to any trade. However, the Company agreed a "letter of comfort" with the Union (who later rejected it) stating that it would favourably consider the bricklayers who had worked at DCU for other work in the future. In the past the Company has re-employed workers and will continue to do so.
3. Each of the Company's sites is stand alone and each project manager is solely responsible for staff recruitment. The Company cannot agree to the establishment of one panel from which to solely select workers for all its bricklaying requirements. This arrangement would discriminate against other ex-employees of the Company and other members of the B.A.T.U.. It would also erode the fundamental right of management to manage.
RECOMMENDATION:
Having considered the submissions the Court recommends that the Company agrees to the Union's proposal that the parties agree to draw up a list of all B.A.T.U. members who have previously worked for the Company and that this list will be consulted and used by the Company when it is recruiting in the future.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Evelyn Owens
25th May, 1998______________________
D.G./U.S.Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Dympna Greene, Court Secretary.