FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : ROADSTONEWOOD - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Hayes Employer Member: Mr Murphy Worker Member: Ms Ni Mhurchu |
1. Lay-offs at the Gooig plant
BACKGROUND:
2. This dispute concerns issues surrounding the layoff of a number of employees at a plant in Limerick. 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 August, 2012, in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990.
A Labour Court hearing took place on the 7th November 2012.
UNION’S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. For several years the issue of the retention of staff during lay-off has been the subject of a dispute with the workers and the employer in this company.
2. The Union argues that the retention of a sole member of staff poses a health and safety risk to that worker.
3. The Union contends that it has an agreement for a minimum of three members of staff to be retained during a lay off.
EMPLOYER'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The contraction of the industry in recent years has compelled the Employer to introduce cost saving measures, including reductions in overtime, lay-off, short time working, redundancies and location closures which have affected all grades of staff within the company.
2. The Company will shut down the manufacturing plant for the duration of the lay-off. Only the finished goods section of the depot will remain open during the lay-off and one worker is more than sufficient to staff this area.
3. Should it become necessary to recommence manufacturing operations earlier than currently planned all of the laid off workers will be brought back to work without exception.
RECOMMENDATION:
The issue before the Court relates to the number of employees to be retained in employment by the Company during a lay-off in its Gooig location. The Union argued that it had an agreement that three employees would be retained in employment: the Company argued that one employee was sufficient to meet it operational needs for the period in question.
In the course of the hearing into the dispute the Union proposed and the Company agreed to the retention of two employees in respect of the proposed period of lay-off.
The Court accordingly formally recommends that the parties confirm their agreement to this proposal and proceed accordingly.
The Court so recommends.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Brendan Hayes
CR______________________
15th November 2012Deputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Ciaran Roche, Court Secretary.