Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD8760 Case Number: LCR11221 Section / Act: S67 Parties: ROWNTREE MACKINTOSH - and - ATGWU |
The calculation of a redundancy lump sum for one worker.
Recommendation:
5. The Court, having carefully considered the submissions in this
case does not find it possible to recommend concession of the
claim.
Division: Mr Fitzgerald Mr Collins Mr Devine
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD8760 THE LABOUR COURT LCR11221
CC861869 INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
RECOMMENDATION NO. 11221
Parties: ROWNTREE MACKINTOSH (IRELAND) PLC
and
AMALGAMATED TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION
Subject:
1. The calculation of a redundancy lump sum for one worker.
Background:
2. The Company announced a re-organisation plan on 6th March,
1986 to ensure its future survival. This included 380
redundancies. The worker concerned was one of those who accepted
redundancy which was scheduled for September, 1986. He was, in
fact, retained until 7th November, 1986, due to the phasing out of
some production processes. Agreement was reached on redundancy
terms of five weeks gross pay per year of service plus #1,000
finishing bonus plus 5% in respect of the 26th wage round to be
applied to the gross amount. The terms of the Redundancy Act were
to be used to establish years of service (ie: 182 days = one year
of service). In regard to calculation of gross pay the figure of
#211.54 maximum under the Redundancy Act was not to apply. The
Company calculated this worker's redundancy lump sum as follows:-
Date of Entry into Service 18 April 1952
Date of Leaving 7 November 1986
Service 34 years + 247 days
Deduct Strike days lost ___________123 days
34 years + 124 days
Round figure in years 34 years
Average Gross Earning Per Week # 259.04
Lump Sum #44,036.80
Finishing Bonus # 1,000.00
Total Lump Sum Due #45,036.80
==========
The worker considers that his service should be greater, giving a
round figure in years of 35 years and that his average gross
earnings should be greater than #259.04 per week. The Company
considers its calculation to be correct. The matter was referred
to the conciliation service of the Labour Court on 10th November,
1986 and a conciliation conference took place on 19th January,
1987. No agreement was reached, however, and the matter was
referred to a full hearing of the Labour Court. A Court hearing
took place on 13th March, 1987.
Union's arguments:
3. (i) The worker was out sick for 56 days, before, during and
after a 1976 strike and should not therefore have the
days of the strike deducted from his service. He was
also locked out for two days during a Craft Unions'
dispute in 1984 and continued to work for three days as
part of the run-down operation in the course of three
other disputes. In addition he is entitled to an extra
leap year day for 1952 which would bring his total
entitlement to 34 years and 186 days (ie: 35 years)
rather than 34 years and 124 days.
(ii) The worker was not on strike during the 42 days of the
1969 maintenance strike.
(iii) The Union contends that in calculating the worker's
average gross earnings per week account should have
been taken of a #5.36 plus payment and #10.75 lunch
allowance. These earnings were covered by a protection
of earnings allowance agreement and had been paid to
the worker for many years.
Company's arguments:
4. (a) The deduction of 123 days for strikes has been accepted
by all. There were many other people ill during the
four strikes which were taken into account and they
have accepted the number of days set off. The fact
that this worker was ill is not in debate, but the
Company contends that had he not been ill, he would
have been on strike with his colleagues. If he had
offered himself for work he would have been laid off as
there was no work available due to a strike called by
the Union of which he was a member. The Company has
never had occasion to lock people out. No Union has
ever made this claim nor does the A.T.G.W.U. in this
case. The four strikes representing 123 days was not
the full complement of stoppages over the years. Other
strikes (1969, 1977 and 1981) amounting to 59 days,
were not included.
(b) For some years the worker was in receipt of a free
lunch while performing a particular job as he was
unable to leave his place of work at lunchtime. When
he ceased doing the job and the need for the lunch no
longer existed he put forward a claim that he should
continue to be paid the equivalent sum. The Company
agreed to pay him the value of the lunch (#10.15) under
a protection agreement for a period of 1.75 years,
commencing on 1st March, 1985, and finishing on 30th
November, 1986. The payment of lunch allowance under
the such circumstances could not be classified as
earnings. There were many other groups such as
supervisors who received a free evening meal up to the
time of leaving. This was not included as part of
their earnings nor did they make any such claim. Any
sum paid under the protection agreement was for a
specified period of time with a starting and finishing
date. On cessation of the payment a worker was still
being paid the rate for the job in line with his
colleagues.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. The Court, having carefully considered the submissions in this
case does not find it possible to recommend concession of the
claim.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Nicholas Fitzgerald
4th June, 1987 -------------------
A.K./P.W. Deputy Chairman