INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990
EMO OIL LTD
(REPRESENTED BY IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION)
- AND -
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
Chairman: Mr Hayes
Employer Member: Mr Murphy
Worker Member: Mr McCarthy
1. Disputed lay-offs.
This dispute concerns the lay-off of a number of drivers in Emo Oil Ltd. This 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 13th January, 2015, in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990.
A Labour Court hearing took place on the 21st April, 2015.
3. 1. The Union believes that drivers are an easy target and that it was an opportunistic move by the Company to reduce the number of permanent drivers during the summer months.
2. The Union argues that 2014 was a good summer which meant that farmers got three silage cuts as opposed to two and that therefore should have necessitated the employment of more drivers and not less.
3. The Unionargues that its members were prepared to consider administrative work in head office or elsewhere within the Company, as an alternative to lay-off.
4. 1. Drivers are not an easy target and there have been cuts across the board to align income and costs in the Company.
2. The Company is seeking to maintain employment at as high a level as possible. That is why lay-offs were introduced as opposed to redundancies.
3. The Company says that there was a genuine business need for lay-offs.
Having carefully considered the submissions of both parties to this dispute the Court recommends as follows:
1. The parties should engage with a view to concluding a framework agreement on the circumstances in which lay-offs will arise and be given effect to. Such discussions should be completed within twelve weeks of the date of this Recommendation. Issues, if any, outstanding at that time may be referred back to the Court for a definitive Recommendation.
2. The Company should, in the exceptional circumstances of this case, pay the workers concerned for the period of lay-off that took place in 2014.
The Court so recommends.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
22nd May, 2015______________________
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Ceola Cronin, Court Secretary.