Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD88163 Case Number: LCR11826 Section / Act: S67 Parties: D.J. CREMIN AND SONS - and - IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION |
Claim by the Union on behalf of a former employee for the payment of extra statutory redundancy, amounting to 3 weeks pay per year of service.
Recommendation:
5. The Court, while acknowledging that all statutory requirements
have been met is of the opinion that having regard to the workers
long and satisfactory service, the Company should in addition to
the statutory amounts, pay an additional sum to the amount of two
weeks pay per year of service. The Court so recommends.
Division: Mr O'Connell Mr McHenry Mr O'Murchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD88163 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR11826
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 67
PARTIES: D.J. CREMIN AND SONS
(REPRESENTED BY NIALL BROSNAN AND COMPANY, SOLICITORS)
and
IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Claim by the Union on behalf of a former employee for the
payment of extra statutory redundancy, amounting to 3 weeks pay
per year of service.
BACKGROUND:
2. The worker concerned was employed for 14 years by the Company
who operate a souvenir shop and cafe. He was laid-off at the end
of 1986 and his employment was terminated during June, 1987. The
Company paid the worker his statutory entitlement. The Union
subsequently contacted the Company claiming extra statutory
payment on behalf of the worker. The claim was rejected by the
Company. On 1st December, 1987, the matter was referred to the
conciliation service of the Labour Court. As no agreement could
be reached at a conciliation conference held on 10th February,
1988, the matter was referred on 23rd February, 1988, to the
Labour Court for investigation and recommendation. A Court
hearing took place on 30th March, 1988, in Killarney.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Company has fulfilled all its statutory requirements.
It is presumed that statutory entitlements are for the
protection of the employer as well as the employee. The
Company has made it quite clear that no extra payments outside
statutory entitlements will be made.
2. The Company contends that extra statutory redundancy
payments are not for companies with a single employee but for
larger companies.
3. The Company kept the worker concerned in employment during
the very slack winter periods, when normally he should have
been let go. In view of this the Company believes that any
obligation over and above statutory entitlements have already
been discharged.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The worker concerned has given 14 years of loyal service
to the Company and deserves a greater degree of consideration
than has been shown. Some extra consideration should have
been given in relation to compensation, as is the situation in
many employments.
2. It is of paramount importance that a decent redundancy
settlement is achieved by the worker concerned as he has a
young family to support and lives in an area where employment
is not easily come by. To cut him off in the manner in which
it was done is not due recognition for his years of service.
The Union contends that 3 weeks pay per year of service in
addition to his statutory payment is justified.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. The Court, while acknowledging that all statutory requirements
have been met is of the opinion that having regard to the workers
long and satisfactory service, the Company should in addition to
the statutory amounts, pay an additional sum to the amount of two
weeks pay per year of service. The Court so recommends.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
John O'Connell
______________________
Deputy Chairman
27th April, 1988.
B.O'N./J.C.