FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : JJ RHATIGAN & CO LTD (REPRESENTED BY CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY FEDERATION) - AND - 2 WORKERS (REPRESENTED BY BUILDING AND ALLIED TRADES UNION) DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Duffy Employer Member: Ms Doyle Worker Member: Mr Nash |
1. Claim for re-instatement and loss of earnings for two workers.
BACKGROUND:
2. The issue before the Court concerns the Union's claim for the re-instatement of two bricklayers, former employees of the Company. The Union maintains that there is an agreement between the Company and the Union in which the Company gave an undertaking to re-employ bricklayers on a last in first out basis as per custom and practice.
The Company maintains that it does not have any such agreement with the Union.
The issue could not be resolved locally 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 11th May, 2009 in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 18th August, 2009.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Union maintains that the Company broke its agreement with the Union and the two Workers.
2. The Union contends that the Company had many opportunities to re-employ both Workers as per the agreement but failed to do so.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1.The Company maintains that it does not have an agreement with the Union in relation to call back and that it does not operate a call back system.
2.The Company has employed bricklayers throughout the years, all of whom were Union members and all of which have various lengths of service with the Company. The Company does not operate a list system.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Union's claim is based upon what it regards as the terms of an agreement between it and the Company by which workers who are made redundant will be recalled in order of seniority. The Company refutes the contention that such an agreement exists. It is accepted that no formal written agreement exists. The Union contends that the agreement was made verbally in or about the year 2000.
While correspondence was received, after the hearing, which indicated that on one occasion in the past discussions had taken place in relation to the recall of workers made redundant. This, in the Courts view, does not disclose the existence of an agreement on the matter.
In these circumstances the Court can find no basis upon which it could recommend concession of the Union's claim.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Duffy
12th October, 2009______________________
MG.Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Madelon Geoghegan, Court Secretary.