FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2001 SECTION 20(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : WESSEL CABLE (REPRESENTED BY IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION) - AND - A WORKER (REPRESENTED BY SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION) DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Duffy Employer Member: Mr Grier Worker Member: Ms Ni Mhurchu |
1. Compensation
BACKGROUND:
2. The Company is in the business of manufacturing cables. Due to poor trading in January 2003,the Company decided to reduce manufacturing for five working days in order to reduce stock levels in the plant. They operated one weeks lay-off in February 2003.
The case before the Court concerns a claim by the Unionfor compensation for loss of earnings by it's member who was laid off for the five days on the basis that non Union staff were accommodated with work during the shut down period and Union members were not.
The Company rejects the claim on the basis that only essential work was carried out during the shut down period and the worker's job was not deemed to be essential at the time.
On the 8th October 2003, the worker referred the issue to the Labour Court, in accordance with Section 20(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 11th December 2003.
The worker agreed to be bound by the Court's recommendation.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The majority of staff were not laid off for the full duration of the shut down period, some members of staff worked for three days of the week in question and others worked the full week. The only staff laid off for the full duration were Union members.
2. Management failed to explain what was deemed to be essential work, and why Union members were not required to work for part or all of the week.
3. The purpose of the shut down was to reduce manufacturing and reduce stocks. The worker was not part of the manufacturing area and her workload was not reduced or eliminated as a result of the shut down of this area. The lay-off resulted in her work having to be completed on her return to duties.
4. Union members have always been regarded by Senior Management as outsiders, and they believe that they would not have been laid off if they had remained outside the Union.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Company had no option but to implement a temporary lay-off situation for the duration of one week. Adequate notice was given and alternatives such as taking annual leave were given.The worker did not avail of the alternatives thereby resulting in lay-off.
2. There was no discrimination in the choosing of staff that were laid off. The decision was based on the essential nature of the work and the Company was not biased against Union members.The Company used the same criteria for the purposes of selection of lay off in all areas of the business
3. The Company selected people for lay-off in accordance with a procedural agreement that exists within the Company, which states " arrangements for lay-offs or redundancy will take into account the maintenance of the most effective and economic running of the firm".
4. The claim is without merit and compensation is unwarranted.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court is not satisfied that a sufficient basis exists upon which it could conclude that those associated with this claim were selected for lay-off on the basis of their Trade Union membership. Accordingly, the Court does not recommend concession of the claim.
The Court does recommend that should a similar situation arise in the future, the Company, following consultation with the Union, should formulate clear criteria for deciding which functions are to be regarded as essential.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Duffy
18th December 2003______________________
JO'CDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Jo O'Connor, Court Secretary.