Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD86959 Case Number: LCR11011 Section / Act: S20(1) Parties: IRISH SUGAR CO. - and - ASTMS |
Dispute concerning the terms of redundancy for two workers.
Recommendation:
5. The Court has very carefully considered the submissions made
in respect of the two workers involved in this case. On balance
it would seem that as distinct from other workers in the same
staff grade the necessity for transfer does not seem at the time
of their permanent appointment to have been envisaged by letters
of appointment - probably because of the specialised nature of
their work. For this reason the Court, with some reluctance
bearing in mind the clear need of the Company for their continued
service, albeit in Thurles recommends concession of the Unions
claim.
Division: Mr O'Connell Mr McHenry Mr Walsh
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD86959 THE LABOUR COURT LCR11011
CC861758 INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT 1969
Section 20(i) RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR11011
PARTIES: COMHLUCHT SIUICRE EIREANN TEO
AND
ASSOCIATION OF SCIENTIFIC, TECHNICIAL
AND MANAGERIAL STAFF
Subject:
1. Dispute concerning the terms of redundancy for two workers.
Background:
2. In May, 1986, the Company proposed to transfer the Erin
division Research and Development Laboratory from Carlow to
Thurles and also to transfer the relevant staff (5 workers).
Following correspondence and two meetings (held on 10th June, 1986
and 12th September, 1986) the Union reluctantly accepted the
proposal to transfer the Research & Development Laboratory. At
the meeting of 12th September, the Union pointed out that two
workers whom the Company wished to transfer to Thurles would be
unable to go due to domestic reasons, and as their jobs were gone
in Carlow they should be paid under the agreed involuntary
severance terms. The Company contended that their jobs were
available for them in Thurles and if they wished to leave, they
could do so under the voluntary severance agreement. The
difference between the voluntary terms and the involuntary terms
was approximately 65%. The matter was referred to the
conciliation service of the Labour Court at which no settlement
was reached. The Company, on the suggestion that the matter
should be referred to either a Rights Commissioner or the Labour
Court for investigation and recommendation, declined to attend
such hearings. The Union then referred the matter to the Labour
Court under Section 20(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969.
A Labour Court hearing was held in Carlow on 20th January, 1987.
Union's arguments:
3. (a) Voluntary severance is paid to workers who wish to
leave of their own volition. The workers concerned are
willing to work in Carlow. However because of their
domestic circumstances they are unable to transfer to
Thurles.
(b) As the proposed transfer adversely affected the workers
employment they were forced to leave. Consequently
they should be paid compensation under the involuntary
severance agreement, as it was the Company that made
them redundant.
(c) There was no reference in their contracts of employment
that they would be liable for transfer and consequently
they expected to be employed in Carlow only. While it
is accepted that transfers do occur in the Company,
these transfers are usually on promotion or at the
request of an individual.
Company's arguments:
4. (i) The Company needs the specific skills of these
workers in Thurles. There is no one else in the
workforce with these skills. Consequently the
Company will be obliged to recruit to get the work
done. The workers have not been made redundant.
Their jobs were transferred to Thurles.
(ii) In requesting the workers to transfer to Thurles the
Company was not asking anything unusual of them.
There are agreements which acknowledge the
transferability aspect. (Details supplied to the
Court). Another indication of the recognition of
transferability is the application of transfer
expenses. These expenses are reviewed by the Union
and Company every two years and are applicable mainly
to the technical staff.
(iii) The Company has offered terms equivalent to voluntary
severance - which is quite fair as the workers have
chosen to leave the Company and not to continue in
employment at the same work at Thurles, at which
location the work is necessarily located. The
Company is not prepared to pay involuntary redundancy
terms as the workers have not been made redundant.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. The Court has very carefully considered the submissions made
in respect of the two workers involved in this case. On balance
it would seem that as distinct from other workers in the same
staff grade the necessity for transfer does not seem at the time
of their permanent appointment to have been envisaged by letters
of appointment - probably because of the specialised nature of
their work. For this reason the Court, with some reluctance
bearing in mind the clear need of the Company for their continued
service, albeit in Thurles recommends concession of the Unions
claim.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
John O'Connell
__20th__February,__1987. ___________________
M. D. / M. F. Deputy Chairman