FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : TURMEC TEO - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION TECHNICAL, ENGINEERING AND ELECTRICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Duffy Employer Member: Mr Murphy Worker Member: Mr O'Neill |
1. Selection for lay-off and redundancy terms.
BACKGROUND:
2. The case before the Court relates to the application of the Union/Management Agreement, dated 30th June 1980, with particular reference to clauses that deal with lay-off and re-employment and lay-off due to lack of work.
The Union is also seeking terms for a voluntary redundancy package.
An information meeting took place between the Unions and Management on 27th January 2009. This was followed by meetings of the Unions' members, including a General Meeting in April 2009. Further correspondence with Management requested that no further action be taken by Management ahead of an LRC conference in April 2009. Management went ahead and laid off and put members on short-time working.
The dispute could not be resolved at local level and was the subject of two conciliation conferences under the auspices of the Labour Relations Commission.As agreement was not reached, the dispute was referred to the Labour Court on the 14th August 2009 in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 5th March, 2010.
UNIONS' ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Unions are of the opinion that Clause 7 of the Union/Management Agreement on 'interchangeability' works both ways and that interchangeability is crucial to the business.
2. The Unions agree that the Company has the right to assign employees to work in other classifications or occupations as considered necessary by the Company.
3. The Unions claim that the Company is in breach of the Union/Management Agreement on lay-off principles. They further claim that the Company is not abiding by the principle of LIFO and that some members were unfairly selected for lay-off.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Company maintains that the selection of employees for lay-off and short-time was made on the basis of securing as many jobs as possible. If decisions were not made at that time there was a very real threat of closure to the Company and all jobs would have been lost.
2. The Company maintains that all decisions were made in accordance with the Union/Management Agreement with special regard for highly skilled jobs where it would be impossible to replace these with other employees.
3. The Company feels that it acted in the best interests of all employees to secure as many jobs as possible and the future of the Company.
RECOMMENDATION:
There are two issues before the Court, namely:-
1. The terms on which future redundancies will apply.
2. The interpretation and application of an agreement on lay-off.
Future Redundancies
It is noted that the Company does not anticipate any redundancies in the foreseeable future. The Court recommends that if redundancies are contemplated in the future, the parties should enter into discussions at that time with a view to reaching agreement on the terms to apply. These discussions should be initiated in sufficient time so as to be completed before any redundancies are put into effect. If agreement is not reached normal procedures should be fully utilised.
Interpretation/Application of an Agreement
It appears to the Court that the disputed wording in the Agreement is such that it could never apply in practice. The parties should now negotiate on a redrafting of the relevant clause so as to address the type of situation that it was intended to cover.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Duffy
22nd March, 2010______________________
MG.Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Madelon Geoghegan, Court Secretary.