FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 20(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : ROWEAR CLOTHING MANUFACTURERS - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Duffy Employer Member: Mr Keogh Worker Member: Mr Rorke |
1. Dispute regarding the ongoing lay-off of the Union's members.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Company manufactures a range of products for the clothing industry. It is located in Ballina, Co. Mayo. In March, 1999 it placed the majority of its workforce on a phased indefinite lay-off. In May, 1999 discussions took place between the parties at which the Company stated that it was not in a position to indicate a date for a return to work.
The dispute concerns the Union's claim on behalf of approximately 20 workers for a voluntary redundancy package of two weeks' pay per year of service. It argues that the workers have been treated unfairly and that the Company declined several invitations from the Labour Relations Commission to attend a conciliation conference.
The Union referred the dispute to the Labour Court on the 15th of July, 1999 under Section 20(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969 and agreed to be bound by the Court's recommendation. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 3rd of August, 1999. The Company was not represented at the hearing.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. Rowear Clothing Manufacturers is still in operation in Ballina, where it holds substantial assets. It is also operating in Morocco and Poland.
2. It is most uncommon in industry generally to lay-off workers indefinitely for five months and more.
3. The workers have been treated shabbily by the Company during this recent period. From the information received from the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment (details supplied to the Court) it would seem that the Company has not been up front during this whole process.
4. The workers are concerned at the Company's stalling tactics and its lack of response to the Union on various issues, and its apparent abuse of the voluntary third party industrial relations machinery. In the circumstances the Court is requested to recommend a voluntary redundancy package of two weeks' pay per year of service, plus payment in lieu of minimum notice.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court finds it regrettable that the Company failed to attend the hearing in this case and did not otherwise indicate its position on the Union's claim.
In the circumstances outlined by the Union it appears to the Court that the situation with which the Company was faced in March/April of this year was, in reality, one of redundancy. As there appears to be no realistic prospect of continuous employment being provided within a reasonable time scale to all those placed on lay-off, the Court recommends that the Union's claim for a voluntary redundancy package of 2 weeks' pay per year of service, inclusive of statutory entitlements, plus payment in lieu of notice be conceded.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Duffy
9th August, 1999______________________
F.B./D.T.Deputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Fran Brennan, Court Secretary.