FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : TYTEX IRELAND LIMITED (REPRESENTED BY IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION) - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Flood Employer Member: Mr Keogh Worker Member: Mr. Somers |
1. Compensation for temporary lay-off.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Union is seeking compensation for 18 general operatives arising from a temporary lay-off in 1999. It claims that these employees were given to understand that they were being employed on a permanent basis.
The Company rejects the Union's claim of permanent employment for these employees and states that the employees were aware that their contracts of employment were temporary.
As no agreement was possible between the parties the dispute was referred to the Labour Relations Commission. A conciliation conference was held on the 17th of May, 2000 but no agreement was reached. The dispute was referred to the Labour Court on the 22nd of May, 2000 under Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. The Court investigated the dispute on the 16th of May, 2001(the earliest date suitable to both parties).
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. Some of these employees left other employments on the understanding that they were being employed on a permanent basis.
2. A number of employees had returned from England to work for the Company. They were told that they would have continuous employment.
3. These workers should receive some form of compensation as many of them are still unemployed.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. These employees received written contracts of employment which specified that the work was temporary.
2. The termination of temporary employment contracts does not establish grounds for compensation.
3. The Company/Union agreement recognises the use of temporary employment when the need arises.
4. Some of these workers were subsequently offered new contracts with the Company.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court having considered the written and oral submissions and examined the letters provided by the Company on appointment, does not find in favour of the Union in this claim, as these were clearly temporary contracts.
However, in relation to the appointment of Mr Alan Dickinson, the Court finds that his appointment was different to the others quoted, and that there is a case to be answered by the Company.
The Court recommends that in this case the parties meet to agree on a compensation figure. If they fail to reach agreement the Court will on request from either party make a definitive recommendation.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Finbarr Flood
25th May, 2001______________________
LW/CCChairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Larry Wisely, Court Secretary.