FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 20(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : GOULDING FERTILISERS (REPRESENTED BY THE IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION) - AND - A WORKER (REPRESENTED BY SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION) DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Duffy Employer Member: Mr Keogh Worker Member: Mr Rorke |
1. Alleged breach of agreement and discrimination.
BACKGROUND:
2. Following a Company rationalisation/redundancy plan, the worker was made redundant in 1981, along with a number of other employees. Part of the plan involved the redundant workers being recalled to work on occasions to meet production requirements. This was done on a seniority basis. The last time the worker concerned was recalled was in 1990 for a number of weeks. The Union's claim is that the worker has not been called back in order of seniority in subsequent years.
The Company claims that in March, 1995, the worker was asked to report for work, having been passed fit for work by the Company doctor. The worker did not return. In October, 1995, the worker, along with a number of other employees on the seniority list, was written to and asked to report for work but again he did not return. As a result, the next most senior person to the worker returned instead. The worker denies that he was asked to return.
The worker referred his case to the Labour Court on the 12th of August, 1998, in accordance with Section 20(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 21st of October, 1998, in Cork. The worker agreed to be bound by the Court's recommendation.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The worker was not contacted to return to work in 1995 as the Company claims. The Company's call-back system for former employees was very "hit and miss", and the worker believes that insufficient efforts were made by the Company to contact him.
2. The worker had informed the Company in 1995 that he would be fit to report back for the following season. However, a list of casual workers from 1996 shows that the worker was not included. Because of his seniority, the worker should now be recalled.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The worker was asked to return to work in March and October, 1995. He did not do so nor did he contact the Company to offer a reason for not returning. Therefore, in keeping with the Company/Union agreement, the worker was deemed to have forfeited his rights and was not contacted again.
2. In 1997, the parties entered into negotiation for a rationalisation programme. It was agreed by both parties as to who had the right to call-back. The worker was not included on the list as both sides accepted that he had given up his right to call-back. Conceding the Union's claim could give rise to similar claims from many former employees who have given up their right to call-back.
RECOMMENDATION:
It was confirmed to the Court that the seniority list presently in operation was drawn up in agreement with the Union. In these circumstances, it is not open to the Court to change that list.
The Court does not, therefore, recommend concession of the claim.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Duffy
9th November, 1998______________________
C.O'N./D.T.Deputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Ciaran O'Neill, Court Secretary.