FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2001 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : IRALCO (REPRESENTED BY IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION) - AND - AMALGAMATED TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Duffy Employer Member: Mr Grier Worker Member: Mr O'Neill |
1. Lay offs - Selection of process (Interpretation of clause 38 of Company/Union agreement
BACKGROUND:
2. The Company which manufactures parts for the automative industry is based in Westmeath and employs 407 people. In March 2004 the Company received notification from two contractors of close down for a two week period 10 days in advance of the closedown, this resulted in the lay off of a number of staff over this period. The Company having consulted the Company/Union agreement proceeded to lay off those working on the production line affected by the contractors closedown. The Union insisted that lay-offs be on a last in first out basis in line with clause 38 of the agreement.
The case before the Court concerns the interpretation of the Company/Union agreement ( green book ) on lay-off procedures.
The dispute could not be resolved at local level and was the subject of a conciliation conference under the auspices of the Labour Relations Commission. As agreement was not reached, the dispute was referred to the Labour Court on the 6th April, 2004, in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 15th April, 2004.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Company did not honour page 1 of the handbook, by going to the Labour Relations Commission or Labour Court for a decision but implemented their interpretation. It is wrong for the Company to unilaterally change a contract especially a fundamental change.
2. What the Company did is breach of contract, making an unlawful deduction of wages.
3. Cross-training forms part of the handbook, it is for the Company to ensure that training programmes are set and not for the Union to manage and implement.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Company were confident that they have correctly interpreted Clause 38 of the green book when implementing the lay-offs. It was Management's understanding that any qualifications on how selection for lay off was to occur applied only to specialist occupations, therefore they understood that no specific requirements applied to lay-off in general operative grades.
2. The Company had very little notice of the shut down by the contractors and had to react quickly.
3.As employees are not currently cross-trained there was no possibility of transferring operatives from one line to another at such short notice. Transferring to meet a LIFO situation would have seriously impacted on the Company.
4. The Company has put forward a proposal to address any future lay-offs in accordance with LIFO where cross-training has taken place.
RECOMMENDATION:
Whilst a number of issues were raised by the parties in the course of their submissions, the net point for adjudication is the correct interpretation to be placed on Clause 38 of the Company/Union agreement as it related to the application of LIFO in the selection of lay-offs.
The relevant provision provides as follows:
- " it is understood that due to specific demands some specialist operations may be excluded from selection for lay-off or short-time on a last-in first-out basis".
The Court notes the Company's claim that staff have not cooperated in the undergoing cross training and that in consequence LIFO was not a practical option in this case. This was not the reason advanced for selecting those who were laid-off nor is it the issue which was referred to the Court. Nonetheless the Court recommends that the Union should fully cooperate with cross training in the future and that they should further recognise that in the absence of such cooperation the application of LIFO will not be a feasible option.
In the circumstances the Court recommends that the Company should compensate those laid-off out of their order of seniority by paying the difference between their normal basic pay and social welfare benefits to which they would have been entitled in respect of the period of lay-off.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Duffy
26th April 2004______________________
JO'CChairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Joanne O'Connor, Court Secretary.