FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : GEM CONSTRUCTION (REPRESENTED BY CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY FEDERATION) - AND - BUILDING AND ALLIED TRADES UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Hayes Employer Member: Mr Murphy Worker Member: Ms Ni Mhurchu |
1. 1. Breach of Agreement – Re-employment of Bricklayers, 2. Compliance with Local Authority Agreement and 3. Employment of Apprentices.
BACKGROUND:
2. The case before the Court concerns a claim by the Union on behalf of seven of its members previously employed by the Company as bricklayers. The issues in dispute are the alleged breach of an Agreement in relation to the re-employment of bricklayers, compliance with a local authority agreement and the employment of apprentices. As a consequence of an agreement reached between the Union and the Company in 2007, the Workers in question were made redundant with a guarantee of future re-employment once work became available. The Union maintains that this commitment has not been honoured by the Company. The Union further contends that the Company has since outsourced bricklaying work to sub-contractors rather than re-employ the now redundant Workers. The Union also asserts that the Company are not in compliance with a local authority procedural agreement governing pay and terms and conditions of employment. However the Company refutes this and maintain that this agreement is not applicable to these Workers. The Union is seeking to have a number of apprentices employed by the Company so as to ensure a supply of skilled workers to the industry.
The 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 31st January 2011, in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 16th June 2011.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Company has acted in breach of the terms of an Agreement reached in 2007 by not fulfilling its commitment to re-employ the Workers once bricklaying work became available.
2. The Company has employed sub-contractors to carry out bricklaying work that should have been given to the former Workers.
3.The Union contends that the Workers accepted statutory redundancy payments on the understanding that they would be re-employed once the Company had work available.
EMPLOYER'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Agreement reached in 2007 had expired in 2009 and was not applicable to the Workers that were made redundant in 2009.
2. The Company asserts that it is not in breach of the terms of any Agreement and has fully complied with the terms of all previously binding Agreements.
3. The Company contends that at present there is no bricklaying work available and furthermore there is no standing commitment to re-employ the former Workers.
RECOMMENDATION:
Three issues were referred from the LRC to this Court for Recommendation under Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act. The issues referred were:
1.Breach of Agreement- Re-employment of Bricklayers
2. Compliance with the Local Authority Agreement
3. Employment of Apprentices
In the course of the hearing both parties agreed that only item 1 above was before the Court for Recommendation at this time.
Breach of Agreement- Re-employment of Bricklayers
The Court has carefully considered the submissions of both parties in this case. On the basis of the evidence presented to it the Court finds that the Employer honoured in full the agreement set out in its letter to BATU dated 6th September 2007 in respect of the employees that were scheduled to be made redundant at that time. All of those affected and for whom employment became available were re-employed in accordance with the terms of that agreement. The Court is satisfied that the terms of that agreement applied only to the Workers affected at that time and in respect of the then imminent redundancy situation that was in prospect.
When the need to again effect redundancies arose in 2008 the Company clearly indicated that it was not in a position to renew the commitments regarding the future re-employment of those affected.
Accordingly the Court does not recommend concession of the Union's claim.
The Court so recommends.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Brendan Hayes
28th June 2011______________________
SCDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Sharon Cahill, Court Secretary.