FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 20(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : IRISH HOLEMASTERS LTD - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION) DIVISION : Chairman: Ms Jenkinson Employer Member: Ms Cryan Worker Member: Ms Ni Mhurchu |
1. Unfair selection for temporary lay-off, fair procedures & natural justice denied.
BACKGROUND:
2. This case concerns a dispute between the Company (represented by the CIF) and SIPTU in relation to the selection criteria for temporary lay-offs of 5 general operatives employed by the Company. The Union's position is that the workers were not given any prior notice of the temporary lay offs and that the Company did not apply fair procedures when the workers appealed the selection criteria used in relation to the lay offs. The Company's position is that the workers were placed on temporary lay offs due to a downturn in business and the Company applied selection criteria based on skills, experience, service, performance and disciplinary record. The Company further contends that the temporary lay off may not have lasted but that the workers applied for their redundancy after the minimum four week period had elapsed and subsequently left the Company on that basis.
The workers referred the dispute to the Labour Court on 30th June, 2010 in accordance with Section 20(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969 and agreed to be bound by the Court's Recommendation. A Labour Court hearing took place on 11th November, 2010.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3 1 The workers were put on temporary lay off without any prior warning or notification of the selection criteria used. On appealing the Company's criteria the workers were denied natural justice and fair procedures by not having the selection criteria explained to them.
2 There were other workers who had less service than the claimants but were not put on temporary lay off despite all workers being equally skilled.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4 1 The Company had no option but to introduce temporary lay offs. The claimants applied for their redundancies immediately after the statutory minimumperiod of four weeks had elapsed. If they had not left the Company they would have since been re-employed.
2 The Company applied its selection criteria which has subsequently been agreed with the Trade Union. The workers who were kept on had additional skills than those placed on temporary lay-offs. In circumstances where temporary lay-offs are required, management must apply the selection criteria which best fits the needs of its business.
RECOMMENDATION:
The matters before the Court concerns claims made, by the Union on behalf of five workers, for compensation for their unfair selection for temporary lay-off in 2008.
The Court notes that on completion of the requisite four consecutive week period all five employees subsequently claimed redundancy.
The employer stated the criteria for selection was based on the Company’s customary selection practice and was decided on the basis of their skill, service, experience, performance and disciplinary record.
The Union contended that the claimants had similar skills levels to those employees with shorter service who were retained and consequently held that their selection was unfair and it sought compensation for the losses incurred.
Having considered the submissions of both sides the Court is of the view that there was a lack of clarity surrounding the selection criteria and furthermore, due to the fact that no notice of lay-off was given, the Court recommends that in all the circumstances of this case the employer should pay the claimants the sum of €3,000 each, in full and final settlement of their claims.
The Court so recommends.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Caroline Jenkinson
2nd December 2010______________________
AHDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Andrew Heavey, Court Secretary.