Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD88811 Case Number: AD8871 Section / Act: S13(9) Parties: FULLFLEX LIMITED - and - IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS UNION |
Appeal by the Union against Rights Commissioners Recommendation No. ST142/88.
Recommendation:
5. Having regard to the submissions made by the parties the Court
is of the opinion that the Rights Commissioner's recommendation
was appropriate to the circumstances. The Court therefore decides
that the recommendation should stand.
Division: Mr O'Connell Mr Heffernan Mr O'Murchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD88811 APPEAL DECISION NO. AD7188
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 13(9)
PARTIES: FULLFLEX LIMITED
and
IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Appeal by the Union against Rights Commissioners
Recommendation No. ST142/88.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Company concerned in this dispute manufactures elastic
threads, tapes and rings in Galvone Industrial Estate Limerick.
On 28th April, 1987 the worker concerned in this dispute applied
for voluntary redundancy. On 15th May, 1987, he was made
redundant after 10 years' service. Statutory redundancy, together
with agreed terms of six weeks' pay per year of service was paid
to the worker on termination of his employment. The annual wage
agreement between the Company and the Union was finally agreed
upon on 15th July, 1987. Adjustments in the worker's redundancy
money and retrospective pay were paid to him in accordance with
the agreement. The worker was not however, given the #150 voucher
which the remaining employees in the factory were given as part of
the wage round settlement. The Union, on behalf of the worker
claimed that he should be entitled to the voucher as he was in the
Company's employment during the period of negotiations, and that
the agreement had been due to commence on March 1, 1987, but that
due to particularly intensive negotiations, had not been concluded
until July. Agreement could not be reached on the issue at local
level and the matter was referred to a Rights Commissioner for
investigation. The Rights Commissioner issued the following
recommendation on the matter on 30th July, 1988.
"The lead in payment was intended for all hourly paid staff.
The claimant for a period was a member of the hourly paid
staff, and as such he must logically be covered for that
period during the current agreement. If he had been forced
into redundancy it might be seen as a basis for the full
payment of the sum. However, I am quite satisfied that he
decided to leave of his own volition, as I am equally
satisfied that he could have remained on in the employment
had he so decided.
In these circumstances, I recommend that he receives that
portion of the lead in payment which 1st March, 1988 to the
1st June, 1988 represents of the whole period of the
agreement i.e. 25%.
Please note that his period of notice under the Minimum
Notice Act expired on the 1st June, 1988."
The Union, on behalf of the worker, rejected the Rights
Commissioner's recommendation, and on 10th October, 1988, it
appealed the matter to the Labour Court under Section 13(9) of the
Industrial Relations Act, 1969. The appeal was heard in Limerick
on 23rd November, 1988.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The worker was part of the workforce during March, April,
and May, and if agreement had been reached prior to his date
of leaving he would have received the full payment without
question, as management have stated that the payment was not
related to industrial relations during the lifetime of the
agreement.
2. The previous agreement to the one in question included an
industrial relations incentive payment. The Union continued
the practice by claiming an improved incentive of #200 for
1987, but eventually settled for #150 paid at the outset of
the agreement in one payment. It should also be noted that
the 1988 agreement included another incentive payment of #200.
Management conceded this latter amount on the basis of Union
co-operation with a productivity agreement. Everyone in the
factory received the #200, yet redundancies are still taking
place and none of those made redundant will lose any of this
payment. This is despite the fact that they will not be in
the Company to give the productivity.
3. To achieve the level of restructuring required by the
Company, redundancies were necessary. If workers had not
volunteered for redundancy, another method would have had to
be found. Now it appears that the worker is being penalised
because of a decision which benefited the Company. If the
agreement had been finalised the day before the worker left
the Company he would have received the full payment, but
because he left on 15th May, 1987, he was denied part of the
agreement which came into effect on the 1st March, 1987. The
Union believes that the worker should be paid the full amount,
as this is only just and would avoid the setting of an unfair
precedent.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The annual wage agreement between the Company and the
Union was completed and accepted on 15th July, 1987, and the
resulting adjustments in redundancy and retrospective pay were
made to the worker after this date. A similar situation arose
for four other employees who were made redundant after the
worker and before 15th July, 1987. The #150 lead in voucher
was intended only for employees who were in employment at the
date of acceptance, as can clearly be understood from Article
1C of the wage agreement (details supplied to the Court).
2. The voucher payment was not intended for those workers who
had volunteered for redundancy a number of months prior to the
date of the agreement. The Company was prepared to accept the
Rights Commissioners recommendation however, which was to make
a pro rata payment of the value of the voucher for the period
of the agreement that the worker was employed. The Company
believes that this is a fair compromise, and requests the
Court to uphold the recommendation.
DECISION:
5. Having regard to the submissions made by the parties the Court
is of the opinion that the Rights Commissioner's recommendation
was appropriate to the circumstances. The Court therefore decides
that the recommendation should stand.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
John O'Connell
__________________________
5th December, 1988. Deputy Chairman
P.F./J.C.