Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD86639 Case Number: LCR10814 Section / Act: S67 Parties: J HOLLAND HOSIERY LTD. - and - ACTSS |
Claim, on behalf of two workers, for enhanced redundancy compensation.
Recommendation:
5. The decision of the Company not to attend the hearing did not
help the Court in its consideration of this case.
The Court has considered the submission made on behalf of the
claimants and recommends that in all the circumstances of this
case management should pay each of the claimants an additional
#1000 in full and final settlement of the claim.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
26th November, 1986 Nicholas Fitzgerald
T.O'M./P. Deputy Chairman
Division: Mr Fitzgerald Mr Heffernan Mr Devine
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD86639 THE LABOUR COURT LCR10814
Section 20(1) INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
RECOMMENDATION NO. 10814
PARTIES: J. HOLLAND HOSIERY LTD.
and
AMALGAMATED TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION (ACTSS)
Subject:
1. Claim, on behalf of two workers, for enhanced redundancy
compensation.
Background:
2. The two workers were employed by the Company as a VDU operator
and an accounts technician and had six and five years' service
respectively. The Company made the workers redundant with effect
from 31st July, 1986, and offered a month's pay plus statutory
redundancy entitlement. The Union claimed that the workers should
receive redundancy compensation of over five weeks pay per year
of service. The Company rejected this claim.
3. The Union sought to refer the matter to the conciliation
service of the Labour Court but the Company was not prepared to
negotiate. The Union then referred the case to the Labour Court
in accordance with Section 20(1) of the Industrial Relations Act
1969. A Labour Court hearing was held on 24th September, 1986.
The Company did not attend the Court hearing. On 6th October,
1986 the Court wrote to the Company requesting comments on the
Union's submission to the Court. The Company replied on 20th
October, 1986.
Union's arguments:
4. (i) These workers are being made redundant as a result of
a re-organisation which will be of benefit to the
Company. The workers have acted responsibly in
co-operating with the changes. They should be
adequately compensated.
(ii) There were redundancies in the Company in 1984 when
five weeks' pay for each year of service was paid as
redundancy compensation. The Company should make a
similar payment in this case.
(iii) The workers were both in senior positions of
considerable responsibility. They should be
adequately compensated.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. The decision of the Company not to attend the hearing did not
help the Court in its consideration of this case.
The Court has considered the submission made on behalf of the
claimants and recommends that in all the circumstances of this
case management should pay each of the claimants an additional
#1000 in full and final settlement of the claim.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
26th November, 1986 Nicholas Fitzgerald
T.O'M./P. Deputy Chairman