FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : P ELLIOTT & CO. LIMITED (REPRESENTED BY CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY FEDERATION) - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Ms Jenkinson Employer Member: Mr Murphy Worker Member: Ms Ni Mhurchu |
1. Access to Company list of employees.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Company is a building firm established in 1976 and the dispute concerns its selection criteria for redundancies. The Company informed the Union in July of 2008 that, due to the downturn in the industry, a number of redundancies would be required. Workers were to be selected on a last-in /first-out (LIFO) basis. A document issued from the Labour Relations Commission (LRC) in October, 2008, in relation to the redundancy selection which was accepted by both parties. A problem arose in November, 2008, when the Union wished to see the Company's list/matrix in relation to workers' start dates, skills, tickets, etc.; a "ticket" is a qualification required by the Company at a particular time. The Union requested a list of workers to see if proper procedures are being followed for the redundancy selection but the Company has refused stating that such a list contains personal details of workers which should not be released.
The dispute was referred to the Labour Relations Commission (LRC) and a conciliation conference took place. As the parties did not reach agreement, the dispute was referred to the Labour Court on the 4th June, 2009, in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 11th June, 2010, in Cavan.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Union needs to see the Company's list and, specifically, it needs one of the workers involved to see the list to be sure that correct selection procedures are being followed. The Union official would not have sufficient knowledge of the workers' "tickets" to be sure that the right people are being selected.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Company has agreed that the Union official will have access to the list. The Industrial Relations Officer (IRO) from the LRC also has access and the Union may consult him whenever it wishes. This agreement was reached at the LRC and the Union cannot now try to re-negotiate the deal.
RECOMMENDATION:
The matter before the Court concerns the Union's claim to allow broader access to a list of employees put together for the purposes of selection for redundancy and/or lay-off.
The list was compiled to record details of individual employees' service together with their skills/tickets (qualifications). Agreement was reached between the parties that the list would be regularly updated and in order to ensure its transparency and independence it will be held by a nominated Industrial Relations Officer in the Labour Relations Commission.
Due to a small number of errors arising in relation to the question of employees' "tickets", the Union sought to allow individual employees access to the list.
Following Labour Court Recommendation 19343 which recommended that the parties should agree clear, transparent and workable guidelines for selection for redundancy and/or lay-off and recall of staff, an initial agreement was reached between the parties at the Labour Relations Commission on the 8th October 2008 and the list was devised following a further agreement dated 10th November 2008. These agreements set down the criteria for the selection of employees for redundancy and /or lay-off. The Court notes that in accordance with those agreements access to the list is restricted to the nominated LRC Officer, a Company representative and the Trade Union Official.
Having considered the oral and written submissions of both parties, the Court notes that after a lengthy process an agreement was reached on the criteria for selection to be included in the list and the methodology for holding it. Therefore, the Court can see no basis for altering those agreements and consequently does not recommend in favour of the Union's claim.
However, as the accuracy of the list has been called into question, in order to allay the Trade Union's concerns, the Court recommends that the Company should carry out an audit of the list, with the involvement of the Trade Union Official, to ensure that the details of the skills/tickets are accurately recorded.
The Court recommends that this audit should take place as soon as possible and should be completed by no later than 31st July 2010.
The Court so recommends.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Caroline Jenkinson
21st June, 2010______________________
CON/MGDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Ciaran O'Neill, Court Secretary.