Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD8836 Case Number: LCR11671 Section / Act: S67 Parties: THE IRISH FILM INSTITUTE - and - FEDERATED WORKERS' UNION OF IRELAND |
Claim on behalf of 2 workers for enhanced redundancy payments.
Recommendation:
11. The Court has noted the financial difficulties facing the
Institute and has also noted the long service of the claimants.
In all the circumstances of this case the Court recommends that
the Institute, in conjunction with the other parties concerned in
its funding, should arrange to pay the claimants 2 weeks' pay per
year of service in addition to the statutory entitlements.
Division: Mr Fitzgerald Mr Shiel Mr Walsh
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD8836 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR11671
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 67
PARTIES: THE IRISH FILM INSTITUTE
and
FEDERATED WORKERS' UNION OF IRELAND
SUBJECT:
1. Claim on behalf of 2 workers for enhanced redundancy payments.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Company was set up in 1943. Its principal activities are
in the area of education. Over the past 20 years the hiring of
films to schools and to other organisations was the mainstay of
the Institute. This gradually decreased over the past number of
years as the demand for hiring films fell. The Institute receives
40% of its funds from the Arts Council and receives a grant from
the Department of Education which enables it to employ an
education officer.
3. The Institute operated from 65 Harcourt Street until February,
1986, when it sold that building and purchased No. 6 Eustace
Street for #250,000. A Trust Company was set up to acquire the
building called the Irish Film Centre Building Limited, with the
Arts Council, the Irish Film Board and the Irish Film Institute as
shareholders. It was planned at the time to set up an Irish Film
Centre which would enable the Institute to expand its educational
work and become more involved in Irish film culture.
4. It was initially agreed that the Institute would pay #50,000
towards the purchase price of 6, Eustace Street. However because
of its financial position it was not in a position to pay this
amount. It was subsequently agreed that the Arts Council would
make available to the Institute a sum of #50,000 on the basis that
the Institute would waive all rights to the property concerned.
5. In October, 1987, the Institute wrote to the Union informing
them that they proposed to make 2 workers redundant with effect
from February, 1988. The workers concerned are employed as a
supervisor in the library and a book-keeper with 25 and 19 years
service respectively.
6. At a meeting held on the 3rd November, 1987, the Institute
offered a redundancy lump sum of #5,000 to each worker inclusive
of statutory entitlements. This offer was rejected by the Union.
7. At a subsequent meeting held on 19th December, 1987, the
Institute modified its offer to provide for (a) statutory
entitlements, (b) payment of minimum notice and (c) ex-gratia
payments of #3,750 (to the worker with 25 years service) and
#3,250 (to the worker with 19 years service), subject to finance
from the Arts Council. This offer was rejected by the Union.
8. The matter was referred to the conciliation service of the
Labour Court. At a conciliation conference held on 22nd December,
1987, the Institute stated that they could not improve on the
original offer and further stated that the problem which they
faced could not be resolved without assistance from the Arts
Council. Both parties agreed to refer the matter to the Labour
Court for investigation and recommendation. A Court hearing was
held on 19th January, 1988.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
9. 1. Enhanced severance terms are a common feature of
redundancy settlements. A recent survey conducted by IRN
covering a six month period from November, 1986 to April,
1987 revealed that out of 26 cases, 14 (or 53.8%) provided
settlements of between 2 and 6 weeks' pay per year of
service. A further 2 (7.7%) provided for over 6 weeks' pay
per year of service (details supplied to the Court).
2. The Labour Court in Recommendation No. 11564 (Friends
Training Centre versus FWUI) recommended as follows "the
Court noting the manner in which the workshop was funded with
particular reliance on AnCO, recommends that the parties
concerned in funding and running the workshop combine to pay
the claimants a lump sum calculated at a rate of three weeks
pay per year of service (in addition to the statutory
amount).
3. The Arts Council is not only the main funder of the
Institute but is also the sole owner of the building
originally the largest asset of the Irish Film Institute.
4. It would appear that when the Arts Council agreed to fund
the Irish Film Institute's contribution to the purchase of 6,
Eustace Street and when the Trust Company was set up, the
Arts Council became more involved in the development of a
Film Centre, a project which was originally designed and
planned by the Irish Film Institute.
5. The Board of the Institute was financially in a position
in December, 1987, to offer a further contract of employment
to the Director of the Institute but simultaneously decided
that the combined salaries of two of their longest serving
members could not be financially sustained. The members
concerned have served 25 and 19 years respectively with no
provision for pension payments.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
10. 1. The Institute's main source of income is derived from the
hiring of films. In 1979 the Institute hired out 10,000
films, in 1987 this figure was down to 1,200 and accordingly
there has been a corresponding drop in income.
2. It was originally planned that when the Irish Film Centre
was set up the Institute would concentrate its activities in
other areas thus securing the jobs of all its workers.
However the plans are not succeeding and the Institute is
fighting for its survival as its liabilities exceed its
assets (details supplied to the Court).
3. The Institute had no alternative but to make the 2
workers redundant. The cost of the redundancy package has to
be met from the Institute's own resources and it is the
maximum which can be afforded.
4. The Arts Council has stated that it is not responsible
for the workers concerned as they are not employees of the
Council. If the Council were to assist in this case then all
other bodies which the Council funds would expect similar
assistance. If this were to happen the Council would not be
able to carry out its duties.
RECOMMENDATION:
11. The Court has noted the financial difficulties facing the
Institute and has also noted the long service of the claimants.
In all the circumstances of this case the Court recommends that
the Institute, in conjunction with the other parties concerned in
its funding, should arrange to pay the claimants 2 weeks' pay per
year of service in addition to the statutory entitlements.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
3rd February, 1988 Nicholas Fitzgerald
M.D./P.W. Deputy Chairman