Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD88527 Case Number: LCR11991 Section / Act: S67 Parties: ARTANE SERVICE STATION LIMITED - and - IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION |
Dispute concerning redundancy compensation for two workers.
Recommendation:
6. The Court considers that, having regard to all the
circumstances, the Company's offers are fair and reasonable. The
Court, therefore, recommends that both claimants accept them.
Division: CHAIRMAN Mr Collins Ms Ni Mhurchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD88527 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR11991
THE LABOUR COURT
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
PARTIES: ARTANE SERVICE STATION LIMITED
(Represented by the Federated Union of Employers)
and
IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Dispute concerning redundancy compensation for two workers.
BACKGROUND:
2. Artane Service Station Limited is a wholly owned subsidiary of
Esso Ireland Limited. Up to 1985 ESSO directly operated over 50
service stations employing both management and forecourt staff
through its subsidiary. In 1985/86 twelve of these sites were
converted to licence operation whereby the licensee invested his
own capital mainly in stocks of goods for resale and was then free
to trade in his own right on ESSO owned premises. In 1987 most
remaining sites were changed to an agency basis whereby an
appointed agent was given a budget and operated on a commission
basis.
3. Clondalkin Service Station is part of the Esso owned, Artane
operated chain of stations. It was not transferred to a licensee
or agent at the time the other garages were transferred. Two
workers are involved, one a supervisor currently employed as an
acting manager with a weekly rate of £220 and the other a console
operator on £105 per week. In April, 1988 the two workers
concerned were informed that the site would be transferred to a
licensee in the near future. The Company offered them a number of
options for continued employment but the workers opted for a
straight redundancy package. The Company, on the basis of its
employment records for the two workers, offered £8,500 and £6,500
respectively to the workers, this offer to include a "dissolution
payment" made last October of £2,200 and £4,000 respectively (this
was a payment made to all forecourt staff on the changeover from
the direct operation to an agency operation). This offer was
rejected by the Union who sought 5 weeks' pay per year of service
which amounts to £13,200 and £11,025 based on service of 12 years
and 21 years respectively. This was unacceptable to the Company.
As no agreement could be reached at local level the matter was
referred to the conciliation service of the Labour Court. No
basis for a settlement was reached at conciliation conferences
held on 1st June and 5th July, 1988 and the matter was referred to
the Labour Court for investigation and recommendation. A Court
investigation into the dispute was held on 27th July, 1988.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Union is seeking redundancy terms at least as
favourable as those conceded by the Company to service station
managers last October when the managers were offered stations
on an agency basis and received redundancy compensation of 5
weeks' pay per year of service. By not offering the same
terms the Company is treating these workers as second class
employees.
2. The Union refutes the suggestion that these workers were
working part time for a number of years. They were working 30
hours plus per week which could only be considered full time
working. Up to the time of the hearing the Company had
produced wage records to substantiate its position. However,
the figures now put forward by the Company do not take account
of time worked in other service stations.
3. The workers were not formally notified that the service
station was changing to licensee until 10th May, 1988,
although they had heard informally about three weeks earlier.
The offer made by the Company of compensation inclusive of the
dissolution payment is unacceptable as the Company should not
at this stage be asking the workers to take account of money
paid out in October, 1987 and, furthermore, the Union would
argue that technically speaking a change-over had occurred.
4. The attitude of the Company towards its service station
staff contrasts starkly with that of Texaco (details
supplied). The Union fails to see why ESSO - the market
leaders in the Petrol industry in Ireland - should treat its
employees in a less favourable manner. The two workers
concerned have given the Company considerable service in an
industry renowned for the turnover in staff and this should
be recognised by the Company.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
5. 1. The Company offered suitable alternative employment to
both workers and, accordingly, they would appear to have no
legal entitlement to any redundancy compensation. However, in
the interests of resolving this matter, the Company made a
generous offer to the workers.
2. Records indicate that one worker was not employed at
Clondalkin Service Station prior to 1978, was employed
part-time (20 hours per week) from 1978 to 1983 and full time
from May 1983 onwards. The other worker worked between 10 and
15 hours per week up to July, 1984 from which time he became
full time. Both workers were employed by Clondalkin Paper
Mills on a full time basis up to 1982. The Company's offer of
compensation relates only to the time they were with the
Clondalkin Service Station. Work at other stations is not
affected by the changeover.
5. 3. The dissolution payments were made in anticipation of
the changeover to licencee operation and are part of any
redundancy settlement arising from the changeover.
4. Individuals in Texaco were not guaranteed alternative
employment so the situation there cannot be compared to that
in ESSO where employment was guaranteed.
5. At the time the license was on offer for the station the
Company was unaware that one of the workers would have been
interested in acquiring it.
RECOMMENDATION:
6. The Court considers that, having regard to all the
circumstances, the Company's offers are fair and reasonable. The
Court, therefore, recommends that both claimants accept them.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
John M Horgan
12th August, 1988 ----------------
R.B./U.S. Chairman