FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2004 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : TOWNLINK CONSTRUCTION (REPRESENTED BY CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY FEDERATION) - AND - BUILDING AND ALLIED TRADES UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Mr McGee Employer Member: Mr Doherty Worker Member: Mr O'Neill |
1. (A) Redundancy/Lay Off (B) Rates Of Pay (C) Conditions Of Employment
BACKGROUND:
2. Between January 2006 and March 2007 thirteen workers for the Company were made redundant. The workers were employed on various projects for the Company. The Union and Company had reached agreements on conditions of employment and these agreements were reflected in the Company's contract of employment for the workers. The Union's claim is that their members were made redundant on the pretext that work was not available and that they were displaced by sub contractors who are not in compliance with the Construction Industry Registered Employment Agreement. The Union are looking for their members to be re-employed, to be paid for the period of lay off at their full average earnings, rates of pay to be updated and agreements honoured. The Company reject this claim and state that all sub-contractors are checked to ensure compliance with Clause 10 of the REA. In 2007 the Company decided to concentrate on commercial work and as a result there was a reduced need for the type of workers concerned. The Company believe it made more commercial sense to engage sub-contractors.
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 24th July, 2007. A hearing took place on the 21st November, 2007.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1 The Union's members have been displaced and have suffered hardship and financial loss as a result of the Company's actions.
2 The Company has by its actions demonstrated disregard for existing agreements.
3 Given the Company's profile its contempt for the REA Disputes procedure sends a very negative signal to all parties involved in Industrial Relations issues in the Construction Industry.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1 Clause 10 of the REA provides for the engagement of sub-contractors. The Company is satisfied that the sub contractors engaged on site are compliant with the terms of the Construction Industry REA.
2 With the exception of two workers, all who were entitled to a redundancy lump sum signed form PR50 and accepted their entitlements.
3 Continuous work was not available for the Workers concerned.Under Section 7(2) of the Redundancy Payments Act 1967 the Company had valid reasons to make the workers redundant.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court believes that a genuine redundancy situation existed in this situation and does not recommend concession of the Union's claim.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Raymond McGee
4th December, 2007______________________
DNDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to David P Noonan, Court Secretary.