Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD86645 Case Number: AD86106 Section / Act: S13(9) Parties: ARBUCKLE SMITH IRL. LTD - and - |
Appeal against a Rights Commissioner's recommendation concerning redundancy compensation for one worker.
Recommendation:
5. Having considered the submissions made by the parties, the
Court is of the opinion that the Rights Commissioner's
Recommendation should stand. The Court so decides.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
John O'Connell
----------------
Deputy Chairman.
6th January, 1987.
D.H./U.S.
Division: CHAIRMAN Mr Collins Ms Ni Mhurchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD 86645 THE LABOUR COURT AD106/86
Sect. 13(9) INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT 1969
APPEAL DECISION NO. 106 of 1986
Parties: ARBUCKLE SMITH IRELAND LIMITED
and
MARINE PORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION
Subject:
1. Appeal against a Rights Commissioner's recommendation
concerning redundancy compensation for one worker.
Background:
2. The Company was formerly known as Arbuckle Smith Limited and
was engaged as shipping and forwarding agents. It was also
involved in the warehousing and distribution business. Following
the takeover of the Company, several redundancies took place, due
mainly to the decline in trade. The claimant was given eight
weeks' notice of dismissal and his employment terminated towards
the end of June, 1986. He received only his statutory entitlement
which amounted to #1500. He was disappointed with these terms and
requested his Union to meet with Management in an effort to improve
his redundancy payments. Local level talks were unsucessful and
the Union therefore referred the matter to a Rights Commissioner
for recommendation. The Rights Commissioner, having investigated
the dispute on the 9th July, issued the following recommendation on
the 21st July, 1986:
"Having investigated the matter and given full and careful
consideration to the points made by both parties, I have come
to the following conclusions:-
1. The current level of revenue for the Company is
unsatisfactory
2. I must, therefore, accept that it is not within the
resources of the Company to meet the claimant's claim in
full.
3. However, I am also mindful of the fact that it is a bit
too much to expect the claimant to be satisfied with
statutory redundancy payment only, when a few months earlier
another employee was paid twice that rate.
4. Therefore, I believe that some acknowledgment of his long
service should be made and this must unfortunately be in the
context of the Company's difficult trading position.
In the light of the above I recommend that the Company pay to
the claimant an additional #500. In order to facilitate the
cash flow of the Company this #500 should be paid in three
phases.
(a) #200 on the 1st September, 1986.
(b) #200 on the 1st December, 1986.
(c) #100 on the 1st March, 1987.
The claimant and the trade unions are to accept this
settlement in full and final discharge of all claims related
to the redundancy payment".
This was unacceptable to the Union which appealed it to the
Labour Court under Section 13(9) of the Industrial Relations
Act, 1969. A Court hearing took place on the 18th September,
1986.
Union's argument:
3. (a) Other staff who were made redundant before the claimant
received double the statutory limit and thus he feels
that he should get this also, especially as he has
twenty years service with the Company.
Company's arguments:
4. (i) The Company has experienced a very severe decline in
its trading, especially in the areas of transport and
warehousing. This, added to steeply rising costs of
motor insurance and an impossible security situation
(upwards of fifteen break-ins in a ten-month period),
forced the Company to discontinue its activities in
those areas.
(ii) The Company is incapable of making any payments to
redundant staff other than that provided in the
Redundancy Act.
(iii) The Union claim that the last person to be made
redundant received double his statutory entitlement is
untrue. He was paid considerably less than that.
DECISION:
5. Having considered the submissions made by the parties, the
Court is of the opinion that the Rights Commissioner's
Recommendation should stand. The Court so decides.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
John O'Connell
----------------
Deputy Chairman.
6th January, 1987.
D.H./U.S.