INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2004
SECTION 20(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969
VALUE HOMES LTD
- AND -
(REPRESENTED BY BUILDING AND ALLIED TRADES UNION)
Chairman: Mr McGee
Employer Member: Mr Pierce
Worker Member: Mr O'Neill
2. The Company, based in the Dublin and Meath area, is engaged in the construction of houses and apartments. Following trading difficulties in 2003, it suspended construction operations. Following restructuring, the Company resumed construction, in 2004, on it's project in Santry, Dublin. The dispute before the Court concerns a claim by the Union on behalf of it's member, previously employed by the Company as a bricklayer, for re-instatement to his position within the Company. The Union contends that the Company gave a commitment to its members in 2003, that they would be re-employed when work became available. The Union's claim is that the Company is in breach of this agreement, where it concerns the worker. The Company rejects the claim and contends that the commitment was given on the basis that the existing Company structure remained as it was, but the Company now exists under new management.
- On the 8th June, 2005, the Unionreferred the issue to the Labour Court, in accordance with Section 20(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 27th July,2005. The Union agreed to be bound by the Court’s Recommendation.
3. 1. The Company currently has work for bricklayers and has broken an agreement with its employees and their Union. It has refused to meet with the Union in an effort to resolve the dispute. The Company has refused to co-operate with the Labour Relations Commission in an effort to find a solution. In the interest of fairness to the worker and in the maintenance of a good industrial relations environment, the Court is requested to find in favour of the claim.
4. 1. When trading difficulties arose in 2003, the Company had partly completed an affordable housing scheme. The Company, with the aid of the Bank, re-commenced construction under a new Board of Management in order to finish the housing project. There are no direct employees of the Company as all phases of the project are being completed by sub-contractors. The Company is not financially in a position to employ labour directly.
The Court is satisfied that a commitment was given in good faith in 2003 to BATU members, including the claimant.
The Company under its present governance, does not employ any direct labour, but operates entirely through Sub-Contractors.
Should the Company find itself in a position to re-employ direct labour, the Court recommends that the claimant and his colleagues would have first call on any such job opportunities.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
15th August, 2005______________________
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Joanne O'Connor, Court Secretary.