FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 20(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : SKRETTING (TROUW AQUACULTURE) (REPRESENTED BY IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION) - AND - A WORKER (REPRESENTED BY SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION) DIVISION : Chairman: Mr McGee Employer Member: Mr Doherty Worker Member: Mr Nash |
1. Wrongful Dismissal
BACKGROUND:
2. The Union's claim before the Court is that their member was wrongfully dismissed by the Company. The worker commenced employment with the Company in June, 2004. In November, 2005 the worker was faced with the termination of his employment. It is the Union's claim that this came as a surprise to the worker as up until this he was consistently working approximately 10 hours overtime per week. The Union argues that approximately 15 to 16 workers were hired 3 months after the worker was dismissed from the Company. The Company's actions were contrary to the Company Union agreement. The Company's position is that the reason the worker lost his job was because of redundancy and there was no further work for him. There has been further
redundancies at the plant since.
On the 19th August, 2008 the Union referred 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 25th November, 2008.
The Union agreed to be bound by the Court's Recommendation.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1 The Union find it difficult to accept the Company's position when vast amounts of overtime was being worked and previous to this the temporary workers were not let go during periods when maintenance work was carried out.
2 The Company acted contrary to Section 27 of the Company Union Agreement when they made the unilateral decision to offer re-employment to the shortest serving of the workers and failed to consider those with greater service.
3 In September, 2006 at least 2 temporary employees were hired by the Company. Neither had previously worked for the Company. The Union's member was not contacted with regard to re-employment even though he had kept in touch with the Company in order to find out about vacancies.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1 The worker has not been re-employed by the Company at any time since he was let go in December 2005. The reason he was let go was because of redundancy. There was no further work for him.
2 There has also been a reduction in permanent staff.
3 The panel of workers is not a panel of recall. It is in place for the situation where a permanent job arises, temporary staff on the panel are considered by length of service. The temporary worker must be in employment with the Company at the time.
RECOMMENDATION:
Having considered the submissions presented by the parties both at and subsequent to the hearing, the Court recommends that the Company should pay to the claimant the sum of €5,000 in full and final settlement of this claim against the Company.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Raymond McGee
19th March, 2009______________________
DNDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to David P Noonan, Court Secretary.