Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD86842 Case Number: LCR10829 Section / Act: S67 Parties: POLYMARK LTD. - and - ITGWU |
Dispute concerning terms of proposed redundancies.
Recommendation:
5. The Court recommends that the Company amend its offer to
provide for severance terms at the rate of two weeks gross pay per
year of service, and that the amended offer be accepted by the
workers concerned.
Division: Mr O'Connell Mr Collins Mr O'Murchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD86842 THE LABOUR COURT LCR10829
CC861647 INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 1979
RECOMMENDATION NO. 10829
Parties: POLYMARK (IRELAND) LIMITED
and
IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION
Subject:
1. Dispute concerning terms of proposed redundancies.
Background:
2. The Company employs 51 people and manufactures a range of silk
screen printed labels for the garment industry. On the 1st
September, 1986 the Company which have been operating a system of
short-time working since May, 1986 informed the Union of their
intention to make 15 people redundant. A meeting between both
sides was held on 19th September. At this meeting the Company
sought a voluntary redundancy arrangement. Failing this the
selections would be based on a "last in, first out" departmental
basis, all things being equal. The offer made at the time was one
and a half weeks basic pay per year of service plus statutory
redundancy lump sum entitlement (this was the equivalent to that
agreed between the Company and the Union in 1985 when 23 people
were made redundant). The Union indicated that they did not
accept that redundancies were the solution to the problem.
Following a general meeting the Union members had a secret ballot
on the Company's offer. The offer was rejected by 41 votes to 1.
As no volunteers came forward within the specified time, the
Company issued 14 RPIs on 3rd October, 1986, notice to expire on
31st October, 1986. Two volunteers came forward subsequent to the
issue of RPIs and accepted the Company's offer. The Union
referred the matter to the conciliation service of the Labour
Court on 8th October, 1986. A conciliation conference was held on
30th October, 1986, at which the Company agreed to defer notice
pending the outcome of the Labour Court hearing. The position of
both sides at the conciliation conference was the Union seeking
(1) three weeks average pay per year of service plus statutory (2)
payment of minimum notice to all employees being made redundant,
the Company offering two weeks basic pay plus statutory and no
payment in lieu of notice. The Company's proposals were rejected
by the Union and it was agreed to refer the issue to the Labour
Court for investigation and recommendation. Subsequent to the
conciliation conference another volunteer came forward and
accepted the Company's offer. A Labour Court hearing was held on
11th November, 1986.
Union's arguments:
3. (a) The members who now face redundancy have very little
prospects of securing jobs because of other
redundancies in the Meath area, and also, most of the
people made redundant previously by the Company are
still unemployed. Hence the need for more adequate
severance pay terms.
(b) The average severance payments for other redundancies
in the area worked out at 4.50 weeks pay plus statutory
payment.
(c) The Company did make profits for quite a number of
years. The workers have co-operated with management in
accepting low pay increases, a reduction of 25% in
bonus earnings, and working greater flexibility.
Consequently it is felt that the Company can and should
compensate the workers for the loss of their jobs on
this occasion by conceding the Union's claim.
Company's arguments:
4. (i) The Company has incurred losses over the past number of
years due to competition from other sources who can
produce the same labels cheaper, currency fluctuations
(95% of business is for export), new technology, and
the opening of a new factory in the Far East (up to
early 1986 30% of the Company's business was done in
the Far East).
(ii) The implementation of short-term working last May was a
short-term measure. However as business has not
improved the Company is left with no option but to go
ahead with the proposed redundancies.
(iii) The Company's offer exceeds the settlement made in 1985
even though there is no improvement in economic
circumstances. Any increase of this offer could
threaten the future of the Company.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. The Court recommends that the Company amend its offer to
provide for severance terms at the rate of two weeks gross pay per
year of service, and that the amended offer be accepted by the
workers concerned.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
John O'Connell
__________________________
Deputy Chairman.
20th November, 1986.
M.D./J.C.