Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD87262 Case Number: LCR11291 Section / Act: S67 Parties: SANTRY ENGINEERING LTD - and - NEETU |
Claim, on behalf of eight workers, for increased redundancy severance terms.
Recommendation:
5. In the circumstances pertaining in the Company, the Court
recommends that redundancy payment be paid at a rate of twice the
statutory entitlement plus an amount equal to 60% of statutory
entitlement.
Division: Ms Owens Mr Shiel Ms Ni Mhurchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD87262 THE LABOUR COURT LCR11291
CC87292 INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR11291
PARTIES: SANTRY ENGINEERING COMPANY LIMITED
(REPRESENTED BY THE FEDERATED UNION OF EMPLOYERS)
AND
NATIONAL ENGINEERING AND ELECTRICAL TRADE UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Claim, on behalf of eight workers, for increased redundancy
severance terms.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Company is engaged in the manufacture of steel products
such as pallet racking, steel shelving, clothes lockers and
library shelving. Due to the recession it has been in a loss
making situation in recent years and since mid 1986, eight
employees have been on temporary lay-off. As the Company's
financial situation did not improve, it informed the Union in
January, 1987, that the eight workers in question would be made
redundant on the 21st February, 1987. The Union claimed six
weeks' pay per year of service in addition to statutory
entitlement. The Company rejected the claim but offered statutory
entitlement plus the 60% statutory rebate which is the portion of
the redundancy payments refundable under the State redundancy
fund. This was unacceptable to the Union and on the 17th
February, 1987, the matter was referred to the conciliation
service of the Labour Court. No progress was made at a
conciliation conference, held on the 23rd March, 1987, and the
matter was referred to the Labour Court for investigation and
recommendation. A Court hearing took place on the 10th June,
1987.
Union's arguments:
3. (a) In the present economic climate the prospect of
alternative employment for the claimants is remote.
The workers concerned are below the 35 years age
bracket and their service ranges from between three and
twelve years. In this regard, the Company's offer on
severance terms is grossly inadequate.
(b) Recent settlements for members of the Dublin No. 5
Branch of the Union (light engineering companies) have
included one for 3.50 weeks' pay per year of service
including statutory and another for three weeks' per
year of service with maximum service of twelve years
exclusive of statutory.
(c) The Union has always engaged in widespread co-operation
and flexibility in efforts to support the Company's
prosperity.
(d) The Union considers the Company's approach to be mean
and tight-fisted and requests the Court to recommend a
substantial improvement package close to the Union's
original claim for six weeks' pay per year of service.
Company's arguments:
4. (i) The Company is not in a position to consider a
severance agreement in terms of weeks of pay per year
of service as its financial position does not allow
for such a settlement.
(ii) The Company has been in a loss making situation since
1984. This is linked to the recession which has
severely curtailed the construction industry.
(iii) Despite a shortfall in business and consequential
losses, the Company has consistently paid competitive
rates of pay and has only sought wage moderation and
a period of lay-off since mid 1986.
(iv) Given the state of the business the Company cannot
recoup any redundancy payouts in the form of price
increases.
(v) Sales turnover in the Company has fallen by
approximately 25% in the last six months and
projections indicate that this is likely to continue.
This will be verified by the Company's auditors
should the Court require.
(vi) Five employees were made redundant from the sales and
administration departments in the period December,
1986 to February, 1987. These employees accepted
statutory redundancy payments in full and final
settlement of all claims.
(vii) The Court is requested to recommend the proposal of
statutory plus the refund of the 60% rebate be
accepted. This proposal represents a concerted
effort by the Company to compensate employees made
redundant in order to ensure future Company
viability.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. In the circumstances pertaining in the Company, the Court
recommends that redundancy payment be paid at a rate of twice the
statutory entitlement plus an amount equal to 60% of statutory
entitlement.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court.
Evelyn Owens
___________________
7th_July,_1987.
D. H. / M. F. Deputy Chairman.