FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : FRANK MCGRATH CONSTRUCTION LIMITED (REPRESENTED BY C.I.F.) - AND - BUILDING AND ALLIED TRADES UNION (BATU) DIVISION : Chairman: Ms Jenkinson Employer Member: Mr Doherty Worker Member: Mr Nash |
1. Re-Instatement of 8 Bricklayers and transfer to Roscrea site.
BACKGROUND:
2. The dispute had arisen in March 2008, due to the lay-off of eight bricklayers based in Limerick City and the rejection by the Company to allow them to transfer to a site situated in Roscrea Co. Tipperary.
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 5th September, 2008 in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 4th February, 2009.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Company/Union Agreement of 2004 clearly covers the terms on which recall/call back of bricklayers may be effected within the Mid-west area.
2. In March 2008 the Company recruited subcontractors for the site in Roscrea,the Company failed to offer jobs on this site to Employees in Limerick in accordance with the 2004 Agreement, which led to the lay-off of 8 Bricklayers.
3. Under the terms of this Agreement the Bricklayers would be entitled to a weekly payment of €107 travel allowance only, the Workers ought to be reinstated and given back pay, holiday pay and pension contributions back to 27th February 2008, the day work commenced on the Roscrea site.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Company has always used local bricklaying subcontractors for work outside the Limerick City area.
2. It is not economically possible to expect the Company to pay bricklayers for round trip travel of up to 150 km per day when there is local labour readily available.
RECOMMENDATION:
The matter before the Court concerns the Union’s claim for re-instatement of 8 bricklayers and their transfer to the Company’s construction site in Roscrea. The Union maintains that the Company breached an agreement made between the parties regarding lay-off and recall of bricklayers in the mid-west region. It held that the workers concerned should not have been laid off when there was work available at a new site in Roscrea.
The Company rejected the Union’s claim on the basis that it would not be efficient use of available manpower to transfer workers from Limerick to the site in Roscrea, a round trip of 150km every day.
Having heard the submissions of the parties, the Court is not satisfied that the interpretation of the local agreement put forward by the Union is reasonable or in accord with what has been put forward as custom in the region or the industry.
The Court therefore does not support the Union’s claim.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Caroline Jenkinson
20th February, 2009______________________
JFDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to John Foley, Court Secretary.