Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD87832 Case Number: LCR11633 Section / Act: S67 Parties: TNT IPEC (IRELAND) LTD. - and - IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION |
Dispute concerning the level of redundancy payments for 6 workers.
Recommendation:
5. In view of the circumstances prevailing in the Company the
Court does not recommend any amendment in the formula for
calculating redundancy payments.
Division: Ms Owens Mr Heffernan Mr Walsh
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD87832 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR11633
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 67
PARTIES: TNT IPEC (IRELAND) LTD.
(Represented by the Federated Union of Employers)
and
IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Dispute concerning the level of redundancy payments for 6
workers.
BACKGROUND:
2. (1) The Company provides an express freight delivery service
throughout Ireland. It currently employs 52 workers. The Company
originally operated from two Dublin locations - Dun Laoghaire and
Coolock. Following a rationalisation programme which involved a
number of redundancies the Company transferred its entire
operation to Coolock. There are also a number of depots around
the Country.
(2) The dispute arises from the closure of 2 of the Company's
depots in Silgo and Waterford,as a result of which 6 workers were
made redundant. All redundancies prior to this closure had been
on a voluntary basis. This was the first time that workers were
made redundant on a compulsory basis.
(3) In 1985 a formula for the payment of a redundancy lump sum
was agreed between the parties i.e. #600 for the first year and
#1,000 per year thereafter inclusive of statutory entitlement.
This formula has been applied to all redundancy payments since
that time including the workers covered by this claim.
(4) The workers concerned were made redundant in late 1986. The
Union lodged a claim for enhanced redundancy payments of 2 months
pay per year of service plus pro-rata for each month because the
redundancies were of a compulsory nature. The claim was rejected
by the Company and the matter was referred to the conciliation
service of the Labour Court on 2nd April, 1987.
(5) A conciliation conference was held on 13th May, 1987. As no
agreement was reached the parties, on 5th October, 1987 requested
that the issue be referred to the Labour Court for investigation
and recommendation. A Court hearing was held on 11th December,
1987.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The depot at Waterford and Sligo were strategically
placed. The workers concerned had developed a good rapport
with all customers and prospective customers. The failure
was at senior management level and was not due to any lack of
committment from the workers.
2. The Court will be familiar with the variety of redundancy
settlements that have been made throughout the economy with
some as high as 8 weeks per year of service. The workers in
this case have short service and low salaries (details
supplied to the Court).
3. The Union is asking the Court to recognise that there is
a distinct difference between a voluntary scheme and a
compulsory situation, that inflation is relevant, that the
norm for compulsory redundancy is higher than that offered
and that senior Management in their policy decision were
responsible for the closure. The Court is asked in all the
circumstances to recommend a payment of 2 months pay per year
of service plus pro-rata for each month.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Company has incurred significant trading losses over
a number of years and has found it necessary to introduce
several redundancy programmes over the period. The
redundancy terms were agreed with the Union in mid-1985 and
have been applied to all redundant workers since that date.
2. The terms on offer compare very favourably with those on
offer in industry generally. In view of the Company's loss
making situation these terms are indeed generous.
3. The Company sees no merit in altering the redundancy
formula in respect of the workers concerned.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. In view of the circumstances prevailing in the Company the
Court does not recommend any amendment in the formula for
calculating redundancy payments.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
11th January, 1988 Evelyn Owens
M.D./P.W. Deputy Chairman