Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD87147 Case Number: LCR11181 Section / Act: S67 Parties: QUIGLEY CO. OF EUROPE - and - ITGWU |
Dispute concerning (1) terms for redundancy payment and (2) compensation for remaining workers.
Recommendation:
5. The Court having considered the submissions from both parties
recommends that the Company increase it's offer of redundancy
payment to #1,200 per year of service (inclusive of statutory).
The Court further recommends a payment of #500 each to 11 agreed
employees who will be adversely affected by the proposed changes.
The Court does not recommend concession of the claim for
compensation to the other (46) claimants.
Division: Ms Owens Mr McHenry Mr O'Murchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD87147 THE LABOUR COURT LCR11181
CC87241 INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR11181
Parties: QUIGLEY COMPANY OF EUROPE
(REPRESENTED BY THE FEDERATED UNION OF EMPLOYERS)
AND
IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION
Subject:
1. Dispute concerning (1) terms for redundancy payment and (2)
compensation for remaining workers.
Background:
2. The Company manufactures refractory products at its plant in
Tivoli Cork and currently employs 74 workers. The Company is a
subsidiary of Pfizer Incorporated, New York, USA. Because of a
fall in demand for its products the Company has had redundancies
over the past number of years, the last time was in 1985 when 14
workers were let go. At that time the Company agreed compensation
of #1,020 per year of service inclusive of the statutory
redundancy lump sum payment directly with the workers concerned
(the Union was not involved). The Company are now seeking a
further 12 redundancies on a voluntary basis. If this is not
possible redundancies will be effected on a compulsory basis (last
in first out). The Company has offered compensation of #1,125 per
year of service (inclusive of statutory) which is similar to that
payable in a related company. The Union has sought redundancy
compensation of #1,345 per year of service. This is based on the
amount paid to workers at the Company's Dungarvan plant when it
closed in 1982 and allowing for C.P.I. increases. The Union also
claimed compensation for the remaining workers. It is agreed
between the Company and the Union that 11 of these workers will
experience major changes once new arrangements come into being
after the redundancies have been effected. The Union have
quantified the claims as #1,500 in total per worker directly
affected by the redundancies and #500 each for the other workers.
The Company offered #5,000 compensation to be divided among the
workers directly involved in the changes and rejected the claim
for the other workers. Alternatively if the Union wished, the
#5,000 could be divided among all the workers. This was not
acceptable to the Union and the matter was referred to the
conciliation service of the Labour Court on 9th February, 1987.
Conciliation conferences were held on 25th February, 16th March
and 7th April, 1987. As no agreement was possible both parties
agreed to refer the issues to the Labour Court for investigation
and recommendation. A Labour Court hearing was held in Cork on
28th April, 1987.
Unions arguments:
3. (a) The workers have rejected the Company's offer regarding
redundancy lump sum payment, because there is no
comparison between wages and conditions of employment
with the workers in the related Company. Indeed in the
past when the Union advanced the argument that there
was a relationship between the two companies in support
of claims they were making at the time, the response
received was that there were no grounds for comparison
as both companies were separate entities in their own
right.
(b) At the time the plant closed in Dungarvan, the
President of the Company gave a commitment to the
workers in Tivoli that in the event of redundancies,
they would not be treated any less favourably than the
workers in Dungarvan. While the Union are using a
different formula to calculate the weekly wage for
redundancy purposes to the one used for the workers in
Dungarvan, this is done to reflect the different
circumstances which applied in both places and is done
in the interest of equity (details supplied to the
Court).
(c) The claim for compensation of the remainder of the work
force is based on the fact that 11 workers will
experience major disruption due to the introduction of
the new manning levels, while the remainder will
experience disturbances of a general nature, (details
supplied to the Court).
Company's arguments:
4. (i) The Company cannot afford the level of compensation
being sought. These redundancies have been brought
about by a fall in demand for the Company's product
and output has been reduced accordingly. These
redundancies are inevitable as the Company is
over-manned and short-time working has been in
operation for three years.
(ii) The Company, in recognition that comparisons would be
made with a related company increased the level of
compensation by 10% over that which was paid in 1985.
The funding of this level of compensation will place
an enormous strain on the resources of the Company.
To increase it would create an intolerable burden
which the Company would not be able to accommodate
and question its very survival. Payment of the
substantial sum of money involved does not hold any
downstream advantages for the Company as the
redundancies have been brought about by reduced
volume due to reduced business.
(iii) In respect of the claim for special compensation, the
Company has recognised that there will be some
adverse changes in respect of 11 workers and has
proposed that a sum of #5,000 be divided among them.
The Company consider this a fair amount as their
earnings will not be affected by the changes.
However, in the case of the remaining workers, the
Company contend that there will be improvements in
their conditions, if anything, once the new changes
have been introduced (details supplied to the Court).
There is therefore, no grounds for compensation in
their case.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. The Court having considered the submissions from both parties
recommends that the Company increase it's offer of redundancy
payment to #1,200 per year of service (inclusive of statutory).
The Court further recommends a payment of #500 each to 11 agreed
employees who will be adversely affected by the proposed changes.
The Court does not recommend concession of the claim for
compensation to the other (46) claimants.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court.
Evelyn Owens
___13th___May,___1987. ___________________
M. D. / M. F. Deputy Chairman