FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : IRISH CEMENT - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION UNITE TECHNICAL, ENGINEERING AND ELECTRICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Hayes Employer Member: Mr Doherty Worker Member: Mr Nash |
1. Lay-Off.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Company operates two cement manufacturing plants and this dispute concerns the Company's proposal to scale down production temporarily in both plants, and lay off general operatives, for a number of weeks in 2010. The Unions disagree with the Company's proposal on the basis that it is unnecessary and unfair.
This dispute could not be resolved at local level 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 2nd March, 2010, in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 10th March, 2010, the earliest date suitable to the parties.
UNIONS' ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Company made huge profits during the construction boom and neither cement plant is loss-making.
2. The Company, in conjunction with the Construction Industry Federation and other cement producers, is seeking to use the current economic environment as an excuse to drive down wages by reducing the terms and conditions of its Workers.
3.The Workers have already agreed to changes in work practices which have significantly reduced costs at both plants.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Company cannot continue to pay Workers when it has no work for them to do.
2. Concession of this claim would lead to the probable closure of one of the plants and the consequent redundancy of the entire staff.
3.The Company's proposal is a reasonable attempt to maximise the number of staff in employment.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court is satisfied that the market for cement and cement products is going through a difficult period at present and the company may need to introduce some level of lay off for a defined period of time over the coming year.
The Court note the commitment of the Company to utilise direct employees, in preference to contractors, in all situations for which they are suitably qualified.
The Court notes that there is no agreement on lay off terms in existence between the parties.
The Court is also of the view that the cost of the lay off should not be bourne exclusively by the workers alone but should be shared between the company and the workers in a proportion to be agreed between the parties.
To this end the Court Recommends that the parties meet, as a matter of urgency, to agree a basis on which the company would mitigate the effect of the lay off on the individual employee by, to an agreed extent, bridging the gap between the income from the state and the normal take home pay of the worker concerned.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Brendan Hayes
16th March, 2010______________________
JMcCDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Jonathan McCabe, Court Secretary.