Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD86722 Case Number: LCR11680 Section / Act: S67 Parties: J. BOURKE & SON LIMITED - and - IRISH DISTRIBUTIVE AND ADMINISTRATIVE TRADE UNION |
Claim, on behalf of seven shop assistants, for redundancy payments in excess of statutory entitlements.
Recommendation:
5. The Court having considered the final financial position of
the Company recommends that the Company make a further payment to
each employee of an amount equivalent to the gross statutory
redundancy payment already made.
Division: Ms Owens Mr McHenry Mr Walsh
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD86722 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR11680
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 67
PARTIES: J. BOURKE & SON LIMITED
(REPRESENTED BY THE FEDERATED UNION OF EMPLOYERS)
AND
IRISH DISTRIBUTIVE AND ADMINISTRATIVE TRADE UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Claim, on behalf of seven shop assistants, for redundancy
payments in excess of statutory entitlements.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Company, based in Kilkenny, was involved principally in
the retail drapery business for approximately 100 years. It
ceased trading in April, 1986, due to continued trading
difficulties. In January, 1986, the staff and the Union were
informed of the decision to cease trading and that Management
would only be in a position to pay statutory entitlements under
the Redundancy Payments Acts. This was unacceptable to the Union
and on the 14th February, 1986, the matter was referred to the
conciliation service of the Labour Court. No progress was
possible at a conciliation conference held in Kilkenny on the 25th
April, 1986, and the matter was referred to the Labour Court for
investigation and recommendation on the 8th September, 1986. A
Court hearing took place in Kilkenny on the 2nd December, 1986.
At the hearing, the Court decided to defer issuing a
recommendation until it examined the final accounts of the
Company. These accounts did not become available to the Court
until February, 1988.
UNION'S ARGUMENT:
3. 1. The Union takes the view that the statutory entitlements
do not adequately compensate the claimants for their long and
loyal service to the Company and it is therefore seeking
compensation in excess of what is being offered. In addition,
it should be noted that the Company's premises was sold to a
Building Society for what was reputed to be a considerable sum
of money.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Company has fully met its legal obligations in respect
of redundancy in that statutory payments were made to all the
workers involved. In addition, the Company has always treated
its workers in a very fair manner and has endeavoured to
maintain employment even when this would not be justified on
purely economic grounds.
4. 2. For the three years prior to the closure, the Company had
recorded losses and prior to that only minimal pre-tax profits
were recorded (details supplied to the Court).
3. Both directors of the Company took #4,410 per annum
between them for the past twelve years in an attempt to keep
the Company in business. They do not have an entitlement to
social welfare payments, medical cards, etc.
4. Before the closure the Company gave the employees a 17%
increase to bring them up to the "town rate" and gave a
further #5 per week from the 1st January, 1986. The
redundancy calculation was based on this figure.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. The Court having considered the final financial position of
the Company recommends that the Company make a further payment to
each employee of an amount equivalent to the gross statutory
redundancy payment already made.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court.
Evelyn Owens
15th February,_1988. _____________________
D. H. / M. F. Deputy Chairman.