FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : P ELLIOTT & CO. (REPRESENTED BY CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY FEDERATION) - AND - BUILDING AND ALLIED TRADES UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Mr McGee Employer Member: Mr Doherty Worker Member: Mr O'Neill |
1. Redundancy, Call Back /Transfer To UK/N Ireland End Of Use Of Sub-Contractor
BACKGROUND:
2. The case before the Court concerns a dispute between the Company and the Union regarding the redundancy of a number of workers, sub-contracting work and call back transfer. It is the Unions claim that its members who have been made redundant should receive an enhanced redundancy package not less than that paid to other grades within the Company. It is also seeking that its members can be transferred to projects outside the greater Dublin area, including Northern Ireland and the UK, and that bricklayers work carried out by sub-contractors be carried out by directly employed bricklayers. The Company's position is that due to a significant downturn in business redundancies were necessary across all grades. The workers concerned were laid off because the Company does not foresee the requirement of bricklayers in the short term. Statutory Redundancy of two weeks pay per year of service was offered, as the Company argues that this is the norm in the industry.
The 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 8th July, 2009 in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 6th August, 2007.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1 The Union acknowledges the difficult state of the Construction Industry at present. However work for its members continues to be available within the Company.
2 The Company have agreed to pay enhanced redundancy and issue RP9 forms to other grades. It is unacceptable that one group of workers would be offered less favourable terms and conditions than their colleagues.
3 Bricklaying work is currently being carried out on Company projects by sub-contractors. Both the Labour Court and EAT have made it clear that directly employed workers should have priority over sub-contractors for available work.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1 A genuine redundancy situation exists. The bricklayers concerned were not placed on temporary layoff as the Company did not envisage that there will be requirement for bricklayers in the sort term. The norm for bricklayers within the industry has always been statutory redundancy only
2 The sub-contractors currently engaged by the Company are involved in restoration and paving activities. This work was never undertaken by bricklayers.
3 There is no bricklaying work currently being carried out in the Dublin area. A sub-contractor is being employed by the Company to carry out a small amount of bricklaying work on the Company's sites in Northern Ireland and the UK. The use of such sub-contracted labour is permitted under the Redundancy Payment Acts and under the terms of the Registered Employment Agreement for the Construction Industry.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court has considered the submissions made to it in this case.
In the view of the court, a genuine redundancy situation exists as envisaged in S.7(2) of the Redundancy Payments Act, 1967. This should be accepted by the Union.
Given the circumstances outlined in this case, the Court also is of the view that the workers in this case should be treated in the same manner for calculation purposes of severance terms as another group of workers made redundant in late 2008 and as confirmed in the Company's letter to individual workers dated 16th October, 2008
The Court so recommends.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Raymond McGee
21st August, 2009______________________
DNDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to David P Noonan, Court Secretary.