FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : P. CARNEY LTD (REPRESENTED BY IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION) - AND - 16 WORKERS (REPRESENTED BY SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION) DIVISION : Chairman: Mr McGee Employer Member: Mr Doherty Worker Member: Ms Ni Mhurchu |
1. Union / Management Agreement, lay-off principles and selection and loss of earnings.
BACKGROUND:
2. P. Carney Limited is a family owned company, established since 1964, employing approximately 33 people. The primary business of the Company is metal recycling.
The dispute before the Court refers to the Aluminium side of the business where there have been a number of lay-offs due to lack of work. The Union claims that there has been a breach of a Union/Management Agreement in relation to lay-off principles and selection and a corresponding loss of earnings.
At a meeting between Management and the Union on the 11th December 2008 the Company outlined the market situation and also indicated possible short-time or lay-offs to occur week of the 19th January 2009.
On the 12th January 2009 the Company unilaterally laid-off a number of Workers. The Union corresponded with the Company identifying no agreement for short-time or lay-offs with the Union along with a loss of earnings claim.
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 the10th June, 2009, in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 20th August, 2009.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1.The Union maintains that the Company should have given its members the opportunity to work in the Copper side of the business and had full engagement with the Union in advance of unilaterally deciding to lay-off/short time working commencing.
2. The Union contest that the unilateral action taken by the Company to lay-off the Union's members does not comply with normal lay-off principles and that the selection should have been applied to all employees.
3.The Union contends that the Company are in breach of the collective agreement and that its members that are still on lay-off or short-time working should be immediately returned to work.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1.The position of the Company is that it retains the right to transfer employees where necessary. It is at the discretion of the Company to determine when this is reasonable and appropriate with due consideration for skills and experience. The Company maintains that no breach of this section of the agreement has occurred on the part of management.
2. The Company contends that it is not reasonable to expect people in the Aluminium section of the business to accept alternative work in Granulation when they have not been trained in that area, nor do they have the level of hands-on/intuitive experience to adequately operate the process in that area.
3. The Company maintains that it had no option but to implement lay-offs and short-time working in the business. It is the Company position that these have been effected fairly and that selection for lay-off has been in line with the criteria set out in the Company/Union agreement and adheres to the custom and practice at the site. There is no valid loss of earnings claim arising in respect of the lay-off situation.
RECOMMENDATION:
Having considered the submission of the parties, the Court is not of the view that there has been a breach of the Company/Union agreement. The Court does not therefore recommend concession of the Union's claim.
The Court so recommends.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Raymond McGee
26th August, 2009______________________
MG.Deputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Madelon Geoghegan, Court Secretary.