FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : JOHN SISK & SON LIMITED (REPRESENTED BY CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY FEDERATION) - AND - BUILDING AND ALLIED TRADES UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Duffy Employer Member: Mr Murphy Worker Member: Ms Ni Mhurchu |
1. Compensation for lay-off.
BACKGROUND:
2. The case concerns a claim for compensation for two Workers directly employed as carpenters who, while they were on temporary lay-off, the Union claims the Company engaged sub-contractors to complete joinery work on a particular site in Co. Meath. The Company rejects the fact that sub-contractors were engaged to complete the joinery at that time as the project has only been completed recently and any joinery would have been only necessary near completion.
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 7th September, 2011, in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990.
A Labour Court hearing took place on the 6th December, 2011.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. This is the first time that the Company placed direct employees on lay-off while at the same time engaged sub-contractors to complete a project.
2. Both Claimants have been placed on lay-off before and never sought compensation for the period out of work as it is an accepted practice within the industry.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The two Claimants were placed on temporary lay-off, one for one week (4th to 27th September, 2010) and the other for eleven weeks (4th September to 6th December, 2010). Both were then respectively taken back and have worked continuously for the Company since.
2. The only options open to the Company at the time were redundancies or temporary lay-off and the latter was chosen. Records will prove that no sub-contractors were engaged to complete a project at that time in Co. Meath.
RECOMMENDATION:
There is a serious dispute between the parties concerning whether or not sub-contractors were engaged by the Company at the time the two Claimants were laid-off. Until this conflict is resolved the Court could not make any useful recommendation.
The Court recommends that the Company should provide the Union with such documentation as is available to establish when the sub-contractors commenced and finished on the site in question.
Should the dispute remain unresolved after this information is provided the matter may be referred back to the Court.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Duffy
15th December, 2011______________________
JFChairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to John Foley, Court Secretary.