Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD87575 Case Number: LCR11441 Section / Act: S67 Parties: SPOLLEN CONCRETE - and - ITGWU;ITGWU |
Dispute over the proposals to make a worker redundant, and the level of redundancy payment offered to him.
Recommendation:
6. The Court having considered the submissions from both parties
does not find grounds for recommending concession of the claim and
further recommends that the redundancy terms negotiated for other
employees in the Company in 1987 be accepted by the claimant.
Division: Ms Owens Mr McHenry Mr O'Murchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD87575 THE LABOUR COURT LCR11441
CC87936 INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR11441
Parties: SPOLLEN CONCRETE LIMITED
(REPRESENTED BY THE FEDERATED UNION OF EMPLOYERS)
and
IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION
Subject:
1. Dispute over the proposals to make a worker redundant, and the
level of redundancy payment offered to him.
Background:
2. The worker concerned in this case is one of two drivers
employed at the Company's depot in Lucan. He joined the Company
in 1976, and has the shortest service of the drivers remaining in
the Company's employment. In May, 1987 the Company advised the
Union of the need for redundancies in three areas of the Company.
Redundancies took place as follows:
(i) Limerick: 17 Redundancies 31st July, 1987.
(ii) Naas: 4 " 19th July, 1987.
(iii) Lucan: 2 " 28th August, 1987.
The agreed terms of redundancy were,
(a) a severance payment of #550 per year of service,
(b) a minimum payment of #1,000 in respect of minimum
notice.
The Company's position is that the worker concerned in this case
has refused to accept the redundancy terms offered, and this is
the cause of the dispute. The Union contends however, that this
worker is the only one on whom a compulsory redundancy is being
forced. The Union disputes whether or not a redundncy should take
place at all rather than the amount of the redundancy payment
offered though it rejects that offer as inadequate. Therefore it
sees no alternative to somebody being employed to do the job, and
maintains that the worker should be allowed to hold his job.
Agreement could not be reached at local level, and on 12th June,
1987, the matter was referred to the conciliation service of the
Labour Court. At that time, matters under discussion included the
whole redundancy package for all the workers concerned. Agreement
could not be reached at conciliation conferences held on 26th
June, 1987, and 15th July, 1987. Accordingly, the matter was
referred to the Labour Court for investigation and recommendation
on 20th July, 1987. A Court hearing took place in Newbridge on
1st September, 1987.
Union's arguments:
3. (i) The worker is in the position of resisting the only
compulsory redundancy arising from the Company's plan.
(ii) At present he is employed by the Company to drive a
truck owned by an owner driver who is on long term
illness. There are no proposals to take this truck off
the road. Therefore if the worker is made redundant
the Company or the owner driver will have to
immediately employ somebody to do this work. There is
no reason why the worker should loose a job which will
have to be carried out by somebody.
(iii) Alternatively, the Company would have to re-deploy
another employee to do the worker's job. This is
unacceptable since he is not the most junior employee
in Lucan. The worker has eleven (11) years' service
with the Company. He has an excellent record. He has
given the Company loyalty, hardwork and good service.
He does not deserve to be treated like this.
(iv) The area where the worker lives is an unemployment
black spot. His chances of finding other work would be
very poor.
(v) The Company has achieved over 90% of its objectives in
its recent redundancy proposals. Fortunately these
were achieved without undue rancour and by means of
volunteers. It would not be a major cost to the
Company to carry one (1) additional employee rather
than force a compulsory situation. Indeed as stated
already it is doubtful if we can talk in terms of an
'additional' employee since the worker's position would
have to be filled anyway.
(vi) For the above reasons the Union asks the Court to
recommend that in these circumstances the worker should
not be expected to surrender his job in return for the
Company's offer. In the event however, of a redundancy
becoming unavoidable, then the Company should negotiate
a settlement appropriate to the compulsory nature of
the proposed severance.
Company's arguments:
5. (a) The worker is being treated in exactly the same manner
as his former colleagues made redundant.
(b) The offer to the worker of over #7,000 has been
negotiated by his Union and was only agreed by the
Company after extensive local negotiations and 2
conciliation conferences.
(c) Any increase in the offer to the worker would
immediately lead to consequential claims from those
employees already made redundant which the Company
cannot afford to meet. It would further undermine the
normal negotiating procedures in the Company and the
Union, and Company's involvement in those procedures.
(d) The Lucan depot, supplying readymix concrete, employed
9 people in total in early, 1987. In 1986 a pre-cast
division at Lucan was closed and all employees made
redundant. In May, 1987, the Manager of the Lucan
depot was made redundant and on 28th August 2 employees
were also made redundant. All redundancies were on the
terms agreed with the Union.
(e) The Company does not require 2 drivers at its Lucan
depot. As the senior driver does not wish to go
redundant, the Company has no option but to make the
worker who has less service, redundant. The Company
only operates one Company lorry from Lucan and does not
therefore require the services of 2 drivers.
(f) The worker is currently occupied driving a contractors
(owner driver) vehicle while the contractor is ill.
Spollen operates over 80% of its transport requirements
on a contract, owner driver, basis.
(g) The Company requests the Court to recommend that the
worker accept the same redundancy terms as applied to
his colleagues and negotiated by his Union.
RECOMMENDATION:
6. The Court having considered the submissions from both parties
does not find grounds for recommending concession of the claim and
further recommends that the redundancy terms negotiated for other
employees in the Company in 1987 be accepted by the claimant.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Evelyn Owens
_______________________
Deputy Chairman
28th September, 1987
P.F./J.C.