Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD88832 Case Number: LCR12191 Section / Act: S20(1) Parties: JOHNSTON, MOONEY AND O'BRIEN LIMITED - and - GROUP OF WORKERS |
Increased redundancy compensation for eight former employees.
Recommendation:
6. The Court, having considered the submissions made by the
parties, is of the opinion that, having earlier reached agreement
on redundancy terms, the workers concerned cannot have terms
subsequently agreed which applied to different employees in a
different situation extended retrospectively to them. The Court,
therefore, does not recommend concession of the claim.
Division: CHAIRMAN Mr Heffernan Mr Devine
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD88832 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR12191
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 67
PARTIES: JOHNSTON, MOONEY AND O'BRIEN LIMITED
(Represented by the Federated Union of Employers)
and
GROUP OF WORKERS
SUBJECT:
1. Increased redundancy compensation for eight former employees.
BACKGROUND:
2. In 1984 the Company sought agreement with the unions on the
introduction of night baking and demanning. Following full
discussions agreement was reached on night baking and voluntary
redundancy. The terms of the voluntary redundancy were confirmed
in writing to the Irish Congress of Trade Unions by letter dated
4th April, 1984. Thirty five workers, including the workers here
concerned, applied and were accepted for voluntary redundancy.
3. In 1985 new management identified serious over-manning and
inefficiencies in the Company and a comprehensive rationalisation
programme involving 180 redundancies was agreed with the unions.
Redundancy terms were agreed at 3.5 times statutory with a maximum
of #18,000. Subsequently the workers here concerned claimed that
the terms of this settlement should be extended to them. The
Company rejected this claim. The workers referred the matter to
the Labour Court under Section 20(1) of the Industrial Relations
Act, 1969. The Court investigated the dispute on 25th November,
1988.
WORKERS' ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The workers here concerned all had long service with the
Company, ranging from 36 years to 50 years. It was in
response to an appeal by the Company that they took voluntary
redundancy and received one week's pay per year of service. A
number of the group also sold their pension rights. Five
months later a better voluntary redundancy deal was negotiated
within the Company. However, this was not extended to the
workers here concerned.
4. 2. The workers concerned do not think it right that they,
who obliged the Company by accepting the redundancy terms
originally offered, should have been treated so badly in
comparison to those who left later. They received
considerably less compensation than workers who joined the
Company many years after they did. They have spend most of
their working lives with the Company and consider that it has
a moral duty to treat them as it has treated everybody else.
3. In LCR11482 the Court recommended that having regard to
the long service of the claimants in that case, a case existed
for redundancy payments in addition to the statutory payments
already made.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
5. 1. In 1984 agreement was reached on a voluntary redundancy
package. Employees in this claim voluntarily and freely
applied for these voluntary terms.
2. It is normal practice for companies and unions to
negotiate redundancy terms that are appropriate to the
circumstances. The Court will be aware of many instances
where redundancy terms have changed. If this claim was
conceded a new and unmanageable precedent would be established
whereby an agreement reached on redundancy terms could
subsequently be changed based on redundancy terms agreed in
different circumstances.
3. In 1984 when the claimants in this case applied for
voluntary redundancy they were aged between 60 and 65 years of
age. The gross redundancy cost to the Company for the 35
voluntary redundancies in 1984 was #168,772. Concession of
the claim would represent a total cost of #590,702, an
increase of some #421,930.
RECOMMENDATION:
6. The Court, having considered the submissions made by the
parties, is of the opinion that, having earlier reached agreement
on redundancy terms, the workers concerned cannot have terms
subsequently agreed which applied to different employees in a
different situation extended retrospectively to them. The Court,
therefore, does not recommend concession of the claim.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
John O'Connell
22nd December, 1988 ---------------
R.B./U.S. Deputy Chairman