FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : G AND T CRAMPTON (REPRESENTED BY CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY FEDERATION) - AND - BUILDING AND ALLIED TRADES UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Duffy Employer Member: Ms Doyle Worker Member: Mr Nash |
1. (1) Re-deployment of laid-off bricklayers (2) Breach of Company/Union Agreement (3) Forced redundancies.
BACKGROUND:
2. G & T Crampton is involved in the commercial and residential sectors of the construction industry. It was established in 1879 and it prides itself on its strong reputation for high quality construction and good management systems.
BATU represents bricklayers employed by the Company and has negotiated rates of pay and conditions of employment on their behalf over a long number of years.
The case before the Court concerns a dispute between the Company and the Union in connection with a) re-employment of laid off bricklayers, b) breach of Company/Union Agreement and c) forced redundancies.
As part of the Agreement a core list of bricklayers were employed and laid off depending on the Company's requirements at any particular time.
During 2010 the Company advised the Union members that it intended to make them redundant rather than continuing with the lay-off/ re-call agreement.
The dispute could not be resolved at local level and was referred to the Construction Industry Disputes Tribunal (CIDT). As agreement was not reached , the dispute was referred to the Labour Court on the 22nd March 2011, in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 10th August 2011.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Union maintains that the Company changed the Agreement on lay-off/ re-call without consulting with the Union or its members.
2. The Union contends that the Company should have explored alternatives to redundancy with the bricklayers and the Union prior to making the decision to inflict compulsory redundancies on its members.
3. The Unions' members were and still are prepared to engage with the Company with a view to addressing any matters that are of concern to them.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Company maintains that it has not breached the terms of any agreement either between it and BATU or between the CIF and the construction group of unions.
2. The bricklayers concerned were placed on temporary lay-off in the hope that the economic downturn was of a "temporary" nature. This, however, was not the case and there is no basis upon which BATU can contend that temporary lay-off should continue in perpetuity.
3. The Company currently has one bricklayer on its books and this Worker is on temporary lay-off. He is recalled to work from time to time as required. There is no necessity for additional bricklayers to be kept on temporary lay-off.
RECOMMENDATION:
Having considered the submissions of the parties the Court recommends as follows:-
- The Workers who exercised their right to claim redundancy should be regarded as having severed their connection with the Company.
- Those made compulsorily redundant should be given priority for employment should a requirement for bricklayers arise in the future.
- The Agreement between the Company and the Union should be renegotiated at an appropriate time in the future.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Duffy
11th August 2011______________________
MG.Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Madelon Geoghegan, Court Secretary.