FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2004 SECTION 20(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : ROADBRIDGE LIMITED TRADING AS ROADBRIDGE CIVIL ENGINEERING CONTRACTORS (REPRESENTED BY HOLMES O'MALLEY SEXTON SOLICITORS) - AND - A WORKER (REPRESENTED BY SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION) DIVISION : Chairman: Ms Jenkinson Employer Member: Mr Murphy Worker Member: Mr O'Neill |
1. Alleged unfair dismissal under the 1969 Industrial Relations Act.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Claimant was employed by the Company as a General Operative from June, 2003, until termination of his employment in July, 2004. The dispute before the Court concerns a claim by the Union on behalf of its member, the Claimant, for unfair dismissal from his employment with Roadbridge Ltd. in July, 2004. The Union contends that the Claimant was dismissed from his employment without recourse to fair selection criteria and that his subsequent dismissal was unfair.
- The Company rejects the claim on the basis that the Claimant was employed to work on a particular project and, as his duties were of an unskilled level, his role within the project had come to an end. The Company contends that there were a number of lay-offs at the time and that dismissal of the Claimant from his employment was not unfair.
On the 16th March, 2006, the Unionreferred 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 October, 2006.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3.1. General Operatives with lesser service were not let go from the Company at the time of the Claimant's dismissal. The Claimant was disappointed with this as he had given good service to his employer for the duration of his employment.
2. The people retained were not from other Roadbridge sites.When the Claimant queried this he was informed that there were only driving jobs left. The Claimant had previously, within the Company, driven machinery and held qualifications for such. The Company, however, chose to retain people with lesser service without regard to a fair selection process.
3. The Union, on behalf of the Claimant, is seeking compensation for his dismissal and his unfair treatment on the basis that the dismissal was unfair, no fair selection process was applied, the Claimant had an excellent record, the Claimant did not receive notice in wiring and no letter of dismissal was provided.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4.1. The Claimant was one a number of unskilled people employed on the Heath Mayfield Motorway Scheme. For the last five months of the project the tasks to be completed were predominantly of a skilled level, a level for which the Claimant did not possess the appropriate skills. The employees who possessed the requisite skill-set were on occasion during the course of the five months required to revert to unskilled work as necessary but were thereafter required to revert to skilled work to meet project demands.
2. The Claimant was not the only employee to have his employment terminated in July, 2004, due to the lack of available work for a person of his level of skill. There were approximately one hundred and fourteen new employees on the project and only forty-five were employed to the end of the project.
3. The Company endeavoured to minimise the effect the termination had on the Claimant by allowing him time off work to seek alternative employment and generously financially compensating him at the termination of his employment. The Company strives to ensure that employees are treated fairly and that a good relationship is maintained between them, their employees and their employees Trade Unions.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Union submitted a claim before the Court on behalf of the worker that his dismissal was unfair when he was let go without recourse to fair selection criteria. In response the Company stated that his employment terminated on 15th July, 2004, as there was no longer work available for him due to the progressive nature of the project.
The worker had been employed to work as a general operative on the Heath Mayfield Motorway Scheme. At different stages of the project there was a need for fewer employees. The project had commenced with 114 workers and by July 2004 the number had reduced to 30 – 40 workers. Ten workers, including the Claimant, were let go in July 2004. Those who were retained after that date had additional skills.
The Union disputed that the worker did not have the required skills for the work to be completed after July 2004 and held that he should have been retained as those with less service had been kept on for longer periods.
Having examined the points raised by both parties expressed in their oral and written submissions, the Court is satisfied that due to the nature of the work, the selection criteria used at that stage of the project were not tainted by discrimination and were in line with the norm in the construction sector. Therefore, the Court does not accept that the worker was unfairly dismissed. Accordingly, the Union’s claim fails.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Caroline Jenkinson
2nd November, 2006______________________
JO'CDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Joanne O'Connor, Court Secretary.