FULL RECOMMENDATION
SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : GERFLOR (REPRESENTED BY IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION) - AND - UNITE DIVISION : Chairman: Ms Jenkinson Employer Member: Ms Doyle Worker Member: Ms Tanham |
1. A dispute concerning a call back agreement.
BACKGROUND:
2. This dispute could not be resolved at local level and was the subject of a conciliation conference under the auspices of the Workplace Relations Commission. As agreement was not reached, the dispute was referred to the Labour Court on 22 June 2017 in accordance with section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on 23 August 2017.
UNION’S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Company is refusing to comply with the call back agreement.
2. The call back agreement is in place as part of the restructuring and redundancies agreement from 2009/2010.
3. The Company should comply in full with the call back agreement and fill any permanent vacancies that arise by placing those on the list into those vacancies as they arise in order of seniority as listed.
EMPLOYER'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Company has honoured the call back list agreements as per their understanding of the agreements from 2010.
2. This has been honoured for 7 years, and was never intended to be for an indefinite period of time.
3. The concept of the call back agreements entered into in February 2010 and December 2010 are no longer fit for purpose for the Company as a result of the Company's ever changing requirements in technology and skills.
RECOMMENDATION:
The dispute before the Court concerns “call back “ arrangements as provided for in agreements on restructuring and redundancies which took place in the Company in 2009 /2010.
The first of these arrangements was outlined in a letter dated 10thFebruary 2010 from the HR Director to the Shop Steward and the second was contained in the “Restructure & Redundancy Agreement – December 2010”, which included a list of 21 named employees being made redundant at the time. Copies of which were supplied to the Court by both parties. The Court notes that the parties have divergent views on the arrangements put in place at that time.
Having reviewed the details the Court is of the view that neither document support the positions contended for by either party. The Court notes that there is no dispute between the parties that those people who refused an offer of employment are no longer on the list and are not covered by this Recommendation.
Having considered the submissions of both parties and in an effort to bring a resolution to the impasse between the parties, the Court recommends that both parties accept the following Recommendation in settlement of the dispute:-
- i.The names of those remaining on the call back list include those who have not refused an offer of a position in the Company and those who have not secured a permanent position.
ii.The call back arrangement for those remaining on the list should be in place for a further 24 months from the date of this Labour Court Recommendation. At which point the arrangements will cease to exist.
iii.In the event of fixed-term, specified purpose or permanent positions arising in the Company within the next 24 months, these positions should be advertised internally as agreed with the Union.
iv.The following criteria should apply to the filling of such positions to those remaining on the call back list at the time - they should be selected in order of seniority subject to skill mix requirements and suitability for the post.
v.If such offers are refused then those refusing should be permanently removed from the list.
Furthermore, the Union must accepts that the Company has an obligation under Section 10 of the Protection of Employees (Fixed Term) Act, 2003 to inform fixed-term employees in relation to vacancies which become available to ensure that they have the same opportunity to secure a permanent position as other employees.The Court so Recommends.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Caroline Jenkinson
25 August 2017.______________________
MNDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Michael Neville, Court Secretary.