Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD87403 Case Number: LCR11304 Section / Act: S20(1) Parties: BALLYELLEN LIME CO. LTD - and - ITGWU |
Claim on behalf of approximately sixteen workers for full redundancy terms as per Sugar Company Redundancy Agreement.
Recommendation:
7. In the context of a Voluntary Redundancy situation the Court
considers that the Company's method of reckoning service is
reasonable.
The Court considers that in the context of a Compulsory Redundancy
situation both parties should have further negotiations to agree a
package.
The Court so recommends.
Division: Ms Owens Mr Shiel Ms Ni Mhurchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD87403 THE LABOUR COURT LCR11304
SECTION 20(1) INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969
RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR11304
Parties: BALLYELLEN LIMESTONE FLOUR WORKS
and
IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION
Subject:
1. Claim on behalf of approximately sixteen workers for full
redundancy terms as per Sugar Company Redundancy Agreement.
Background:
2. The Company, which employs approximately twenty six
workers, was established in 1940 and was taken over by the Irish
Sugar Company on 6th march, 1978. In the last few years due to
business conditions, there have been temporary lay-off periods in
the Company: Autumn 1985 to Spring 1986 (twenty weeks) and;
Autumn 1986 to Spring 1987 (thirteen weeks). The next lay off
period is expected to be Autumn 1987 to Spring 1988.
3. The Company has an on-going Voluntary Severance Scheme which
workers may apply for, on the condition that the Company is
prepared to let the worker go and the Union agrees to
non-replacement. The following terms apply:
- statutory lump sum based on reckonable service with
both the previous and present owners of the Company,
- a "Company" Lump Sum based on reckonable service with
the present Company, i.e. service since March 6th,
1978. Calculation of this based on a statutory - type
formula, of one and a half weeks per year of service
under forty-one years of age and three weeks per year
of service over forty-one years of age,
- gratuity/pension scheme entitlements.
4. Due to the present working situation and lay-offs the Union on
behalf of the workers has requested a change in work patterns
whereby as many workers as practicable would have full-time
employment and others would take voluntary redundancy. In the
event of a voluntary redundancy situation the Union has claimed
that the Company is responsible for service prior to take-over for
full redundancy terms (as per the Sugar Company redundancy
Agreement) in addition to statutory redundancy. This was rejected
by the Company which is only prepared to consider applications
under the "Voluntary Severance" scheme. The Company refused to
refer the matter to the Labour Court and on 12th May, 1987 the
Union referred the matter to the Labour Court under Section 20(1)
of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969, for investigation and
recommendation. The Union agreed to be bound by the Court's
recommendation. The Court investigated the dispute on 23rd June,
1987.
Union's arguments:
5. (i) On the take-over of the Company in 1978, the following
issues were discussed and agreed on: pensions; service
pay; jobs grades; holiday pay; first aid training; and
mileage rates. There were no negotiations or
agreements on redundancy payments. Redundancy terms
were not an issue as the present Irish Sugar Company
Agreement did not come into existence until 1981.
(ii) The workers did not receive redundancy payments from
the previous owners, who had an agreement of three
weeks pay per year of service. The workers involved
have never had a break in service and the Company
should honour its responsibilities to them.
(iii) The Irish Sugar Company in similar circumstances
involving the closure of Mattersons Foods in September,
1986 paid the 1981 terms at full service to the workers
involved. The workers in this Company should not
receive less favourable treatment than other sections
in the Group.
Company's arguments:
6. (a) At the time of the takeover of the Company and
subsequently, the Company and the Union discussed and
negotiated on the obligations which this Company would
assume. These included the introduction of the Sugar
Company Pension Scheme to replace the existing scheme
and the introduction of a new sick pay scheme, no
retrospection or prior service was recognised or
accorded on these. Another item was the introduction
of Service Pay to replace the existing Bonus Scheme.
On this 'notional' service was included, but only in
order to equalise payments to the levels of the
previous Bonus Scheme.
(b) There is no record at all of the Company agreeing at
any time to recognise previous service for calculating
"Company Lump Sum" and it has never recognised this
service either for severance purposes or for other
schemes in operation, other than 'notional' service
involved in Service Pay.
(c) Compulsory redundancy terms (on which there is no
agreement in operation) do not arise as the Company is
not seeking redundancies. If the workers continue to
seek voluntary redundancy for an agreed number and a
move to day work for the majority of the remainder, the
Company will try to accommodate this change in work
patterns, even though the two shift traditional work
system is more efficient than day work. In those
circumstances, the Company is prepared to consider
using the Company "Voluntary Severance Terms." The
Company does not offer Voluntary Severance Terms as a
matter of course but is prepared to accede to the
Union's request for new working arrangements.
RECOMMENDATION:
7. In the context of a Voluntary Redundancy situation the Court
considers that the Company's method of reckoning service is
reasonable.
The Court considers that in the context of a Compulsory Redundancy
situation both parties should have further negotiations to agree a
package.
The Court so recommends.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Evelyn Owens
--------------
Deputy Chairman
8th July, 1987
U.M./J.C.