Labour Court Database
__________________________________________________________________________________
File Number: CD93543
Case Number: AD9392
Section / Act: S13(9)
Parties: MODERN DISPLAY ARTISTS LIMITED (MDA) - and - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
|
Subject:
Appeal by the Union against Rights Commissioner's recommendation No. BC297/93.
Recommendation:
The Court, having considered the submissions of the parties, does
not find grounds to justify alteration of the Rights Commissioners
recommendation.
Accordingly that recommendation stands.
The Court so decides.
Division: Mr Heffernan Mr McHenry Ms Ni Mhurchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD93543 APPEAL DECISION NO. AD9293
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 13(9), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969
PARTIES: MODERN DISPLAY ARTISTS LIMITED (MDA)
(REPRESENTED BY THE CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY FEDERATION)
AND
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Appeal by the Union against Rights Commissioner's
recommendation No. BC297/93.
BACKGROUND:
2. 1. The Company which is engaged in the manufacture of
exhibition stands, employs approximately 50 people. The
worker concerned commenced employment with the Company, in
September, 1985, as a general operative. In March, 1990, he
was appointed to the position of yard supervisor, with
special responsibility for the handling of the Company's
goods and materials.
2. In July, 1993, he was placed on temporary lay-off.
Local level discussions took place between the parties, at
which the Company stated that there would be no work
available in the foreseeable future for the worker concerned.
3. The matter was referred to a Rights Commissioner for
investigation and recommendation. On 19th August, 1993, the
Rights Commissioner recommended as follows:
"In the light of the above I recommend that Modern
Display Artists pay to the worker a separation package
amounting to #3,000. This package to include redundancy
payments and payment in lieu of notice. The worker
should accept this package in full and final settlement
of all claims on the employer in relation to the
termination of his employment".
The worker was named in the recommendation.
4. The Rights Commissioner's recommendation was appealed by
the Union to the Labour Court on 16th September, 1993. The
Labour Court heard the appeal on 26th October, 1993.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The worker concerned has been employed by the Company
for approximately 10 years. He is held in high regard by
management which promoted him to the position of yard
supervisor in 1990.
2. The worker concerned has been treated unfairly by
management. Other workers are doing the work he previously
performed. Contractors have also been engaged since the
worker was placed on lay-off.
3. In May, 1993, it was agreed with management that no
contractors would be engaged to carry out the duties of
permanent employees.
4. A worker with less service than the worker concerned has
been retained by the Company.
5. The worker is prepared to revert to the position of
general worker.
6. The worker should be retained in full employment by the
Company. As a married man with a young family, the retention
of his position is of paramount importance.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The worker concerned was placed on temporary lay-off due
to the economic situation and the down-turn in business. The
supervision of the yard has been taken over by the works
manager on a temporary basis.
2. The other duties of the worker are now undertaken by two
employees on a temporary basis and whose duties also include
driving heavy vehicles.
3. There was no unfair selection regarding the lay-off.
The worker concerned is not qualified to drive heavy
vehicles.
4. The Company has been forced to reduce staff numbers in
every department because of the recession.
5. If the employment situation improves the Company would
re-consider the worker for employment in 1994.
6. For personal reasons the worker did not wish the lay-off
to continue. In the interests of the worker the Company
entered into discussions in relation to the termination of
his employment.
7. The Company has been fair and reasonable under the
circumstances. The Rights Commission's recommendation was
very much in favour of the worker, in view of the fact that
the Company is going through a difficult financial time and
has made a genuine offer in an effort to secure a settlement.
DECISION:
The Court, having considered the submissions of the parties, does
not find grounds to justify alteration of the Rights Commissioners
recommendation.
Accordingly that recommendation stands.
The Court so decides.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
15th November, 1993 Kevin Heffernan
F.B./A.L. _______________
Chairman