Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD86646 Case Number: LCR10936 Section / Act: S67 Parties: DROGHEDA CREDIT UNION - and - ASTMS |
Claim on behalf of 2 clerical workers for enhanced redundancy terms.
Recommendation:
6. The Court recommends that the Credit Union increase its offer
of redundancy pay to 2.50 weeks pay per year of service plus
statutory entitlement and that the Union accept such a revised
offer.
Division: Ms Owens Mr McHenry Mr Devine
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD86646 THE LABOUR COURT LCR10936
CC861158 INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
RECOMMENDATION NO. 10936
PARTIES: DROGHEDA CREDIT UNION
and
ASSOCIATION OF SCIENTIFIC TECHNICAL AND MANAGERIAL STAFFS
Subject:
1. Claim on behalf of 2 clerical workers for enhanced redundancy
terms.
Background:
2. Drogheda Credit Union was formed in 1967. Arising from
pressure from its auditors and officers from the Irish League of
Credit Unions the Credit Union in Drogheda has restructured its
staffing arrangements. As a result four of its workers - 1
supervisor and 3 clerical staff - were made redundant in June,
1986. Consequently, current staffing levels in the Credit Union
are as follows:-
1 Supervisor (pending)
5 full-time clerical assistants
3 part-time clerical assistants
3. The terms of redundancy compensation in respect of the
supervisor and one of the clerical workers made redundant were
resolved at local level but no agreement could be reached on the
terms of redundancy for the two workers concerned, each of whom
had approximately 11 years service with the Company and who since
1983 were engaged on a part-time basis. The Union on their
behalf, served a claim on the Company for redundancy terms of
three weeks' pay per year of service in addition to statutory
entitlements. The Company rejected the claim but in the course of
negotiations on the matter at local level offered each worker a
sum of #1,500 inclusive of statutory entitlements. This was
rejected by the Union who referred the matter, under Section 20(1)
of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969, to the Labour Court for
investigation and recommendation. At a Court hearing held on 17th
September, 1986, the claim was referred to the conciliation
service of the Court. A conciliation conference was held on 14th
October, 1986, at which no further progress was made and the
matter was referred back to the Court. The Court investigated the
dispute on 9th December, 1986, in Drogheda.
Union's arguments:
4. (i) Having regard to the fact that each worker had eleven
years' service with the Company, the Company's offer
is totally inadequate.
(ii) Given the increase in the company's business over the
past number of years (details supplied to the Court) a
redundancy situation did not arise. The Union
considers therefore, that the workers were sacked by
the Company.
(iii) The supervisor made redundant was paid a considerable
amount in excess of what is on offer to the two
workers concerned.
(iv) Since the two workers were declared redundant the
Company has employed a full-time and a part-time
worker.
(v) In the circumstances the Union's claim is fair and
reasonable and should be conceded.
Company's arguments:
5. (a) The redundancy situation arose in the Company because
of the high cost of wages. This situation has been
pointed out to the Company on numerous occasions by
its auditors and by field officers from the Irish
League of Credit Unions (details supplied to the
Court) who advised the Company that it should
endeavour to operate within the guide-lines as
suggested by the Credit Union League rules. In this
respect, staff costs to income ratio from 1981 to this
year has been on average 24% as against a recommended
maximum by the League Board of 18%.
(b) Given the current financial position of the Company
its offer to the workers is generous, especially
taking into account that they were employed, at their
own request, on a part-time basis.
(c) A further improvement in the Company's offer is not
justified and therefore, the offer should be accepted
by the two workers.
RECOMMENDATION:
6. The Court recommends that the Credit Union increase its offer
of redundancy pay to 2.50 weeks pay per year of service plus
statutory entitlement and that the Union accept such a revised
offer.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
26th January, 1987 Evelyn Owens
T.McC./P.W. Depuy Chairman