Labour Court Database
__________________________________________________________________________________
File Number: CD87738
Case Number: LCR11652
Section / Act: S67
Parties: TARKETT LIMITED - and - ASSOCIATION OF SCIENTIFIC, TECHNICAL AND MANAGERIAL STAFFS
|
Subject:
Dispute concerning the non-payment of salary due to an enforced lay off.
Recommendation:
5. The Court finds that under the terms of the procedural
agreement the Company should have consulted with the Union prior
to the lay-off. However, the lay-off was enforced on the Company
by virtue of the ESB strike and the Company's safety requirements.
In these circumstances the Court does not recommend that the
Company should be required to pay wages or salaries for a period
during which the Company is unable to provide work due to factors
totally outside its own control. The Court does not, therefore,
recommend concession of the claim.
Division: CHAIRMAN Mr Collins Mr Devine
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD87738 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR11652
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 67
PARTIES: TARKETT LIMITED
(Represented by the Federated Union of Employers)
and
ASSOCIATION OF SCIENTIFIC, TECHNICAL AND MANAGERIAL STAFFS
SUBJECT:
1. Dispute concerning the non-payment of salary due to an
enforced lay off.
BACKGROUND:
2. Tarkett Limited is a member of the Swedish Match Group. The
Company currently employs 196 workers in the manufacture of sheet
vinyl floor covering at its factory in Mullingar. On 5th May,
1987, as a result of an ESB dispute, the Company was obliged to
shut down for 72 hours, resulting in the lay off of all employees
for that period. The workers were not paid for the period of lay
off. The Union, on behalf of the staff employees, served a claim
on the Company for payment for this period. The Company rejected
this claim. As no agreement could be reached at local level the
matter was referred to the conciliation service of the Labour
Court. No basis for a settlement was reached at a conciliation
conference held on 1st September, 1987 and on 30th September the
matter was referred to the Labour Court for investigation and
recommendation. A Court investigation into the dispute was held
in Mullingar on 9th December, 1987.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. Although the elected representatives of the manual and
clerical workers were consulted about the proposed layoffs, no
consultation took place between management and the Union.
Therefore the Company was in breach of the procedural
agreement (details supplied to the Court).
2. During all previous incidences of lay off the workers
were paid their salary.
3. Concession of this claim would not involve the Company
in excessive cost (details supplied).
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. Prior to the dispute the Company had kept in constant
contact with ESB management. Due to the nature of the
production process and the safety implications of a sudden
power loss the Company had no alternative but to carry out a
complete shutdown of the plant for the period of the dispute.
All employees were clearly informed in a timely manner
concerning the details of the strike and the necessary action
to be taken by the Company.
2. All employees, with the exception of those providing
emergency cover, were affected in the same manner. Other
groups accepted the situation. Concession of this claim would
lead to repercussive claims from those groups and this would
result in considerable cost to the Company.
3. The previous occasions of layoff/dispute referred to by
the Union are not comparable to this situation. In one
instance, however, the workers took annual leave to cover the
period of layoff and therefore were not actually paid for that
period.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. The Court finds that under the terms of the procedural
agreement the Company should have consulted with the Union prior
to the lay-off. However, the lay-off was enforced on the Company
by virtue of the ESB strike and the Company's safety requirements.
In these circumstances the Court does not recommend that the
Company should be required to pay wages or salaries for a period
during which the Company is unable to provide work due to factors
totally outside its own control. The Court does not, therefore,
recommend concession of the claim.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
John M Horgan
20th January, 1988 ----------------
R.B./U.S. Chairman