FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : ELEMENT SIX LIMITED - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Duffy Employer Member: Ms Doyle Worker Member: Mr Nash |
1. Payment during short-time work.
BACKGROUND:
2. In December, 2008, the Company informed the Union that due to trading difficulties it was putting in place a redundancy programme and also introducing short-time work in January, 2009. In the event the short-time lasted from 5th January to 30th January, 2009. The parties met on a number of occasions in December, 2008, with the Company stating that the meetings tended to be short and difficult. However it is adamant that the Union was informed of the steps needed to be taken, including short-time work in January, 2009. On 17th December, 2008, management wrote to all employees informing them that they should not attend for work on days for which they were not rostered and if they did they would not be paid. Despite this, members continued to report for work in January, 2009. Whilst the Company did not stop workers attending it did not pay them if they were not rostered. The Union is seeking that all members be paid for the days they attended in January, 2009.
The dispute was referred to the Labour Relations Commissions and a conciliation conference took place. As the parties did not reach agreement the dispute was referred to the Labour Court on the 2nd February, 2009, in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 28th May, 2009.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The members who reported for work as normal in January, 2009, and worked to their contracts were facilitated by their supervisors and managers and should be paid accordingly. Many employees who were told not to attend but did so found that there was work for them as usual. Without them, essential work could not have been completed.
2. The workers concerned lost a considerable amount of money due to management's decision not to pay them in January, 2009.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. Due to the very difficult economic climate the Company was left with no choice but to implement short-time work among a number of other initiatives. Despite every effort to discuss the situation with the Union it refused to engage in any meaningful way.
2. The Company continues to be in a very serious financial situation. If it had not taken the action it did in January, 2009, things would be a lot worse.
RECOMMENDATION:
The only issue before the Court relates to the Union's claim for payment in respect of losses incurred by its members during a four-week period during which the Company had introduced short-time working.
It is clear that the Company initially sought agreement on the introduction of the disputed arrangement. It is equally clear that agreement was not reached. Against that background there was considerable argument in the submissions of the parties, on whether agreement was not reached because the Company acted precipitously or because the Union refused or avoided effective engagement on the Company's proposal.
It is noted that short-time working was agreed in March of this year. That arrangement is now in place and is working well. It is, however, clear that the residual acrimony arising from the current dispute has the potential to hinder cooperation between the parties on other initiatives which will, undoubtedly, be necessary to ensure the continuing viability of the enterprise in current circumstances.
The Court does not consider it appropriate to engage in a process of apportioning blame for what occurred in January of this year. Suffice it to say that each of the parties has some responsibility for what happened.
It is noted that the staff affected were paid in full for one of the four weeks in issue. Having regard to all the circumstances of the case, and in the interest of bringing closure to this matter, the Court recommends that the Company offer and that the Union accept payment in full for one further week. This should be in full and final settlement of all claims arising from the introduction of short-time working in January of this year.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Duffy
8th June, 2009.______________________
CON.Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Ciaran O'Neill, Court Secretary.