FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 20(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : HOYER IRELAND LTD - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Hayes Employer Member: Mr Murphy Worker Member: Mr Nash |
1. Continuous Lay Off
BACKGROUND:
2. This case concerns a dispute between the Company and the Union in relation to the current employment status of the worker. The Union's position is that the worker has been on continuous temorary lay off yet has not been made redundant. The Union (on behalf of theworker) referred the complaint to the Labour Court on the 24th September, 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 3rd December, 2010.
The Company did not attend the hearing but did outline its position to the Court in correspondence dated 22nd November, 2010 from the Irish Business and Employer's Confederation (IBEC). The employer's position is that the worker remains employed on a panel of relief drivers yet has previously refused both temporary and permananet work on the Company's Petrolog contract. It contends that the worker remains employed and is neither on continuous lay-off or redundant.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3 1 The worker remains on continuous lay off. There was previously an offer of work to him in Dublin which he could not reasonably accept due to the daily travelling distance from his home in Co Carlow and also for domestic reasons.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court has carefully considered the submissions of both parties.
It is regrettable that the Company did not attend the hearing. However it did submit a comprehensive written response to the claim before the Court that was opened to the other side and taken into account by the Court in coming to a conclusion on the merits of the case.
The claim by the Company that the claimant required to be paid travelling expenses to work in Dublin was denied by the Claimant who confirmed to the Court that that was not the case, which the Court accepts.
Having considered all the information and submissions before it the Court recommends that the Company should confirm whether or not it can and will, within the next 13 weeks, provide the claimant with regular work at the levels that he enjoyed in 2007 and previously at a location reasonably proximate to his place(s) of employment over that time. In the event that it cannot do so the Court recommends that the employer should arrange to pay him a severance package of four weeks pay per year of service inclusive of statutory redundancy plus a lump sum of €4,000 in line with LCR 17750 and with that agreed in the Labour Relations Commission in September 2009 in respect of previous redundancies in the Company.
The Court so recommends.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Brendan Hayes
23rd December 2010______________________
AHDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Andrew Heavey, Court Secretary.