Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD88196 Case Number: LCR11849 Section / Act: S20(1) Parties: ROWNTREE MACKINTOSH (IRELAND) PLC - and - FEDERATED WORKERS' UNION OF IRELAND |
Dispute concerning redundancy entitlements for two former employees.
Recommendation:
5. The Court finds that the claimants do not have an entitlement
to the terms of the redundancy package which was agreed with the
Unions. However, in view of the fact that they were not clearly
told at the time that their employment was terminated, they should
now be paid an ex gratia payment of £400 each.
Division: CHAIRMAN Mr Collins Mr Devine
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD88196 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR11849
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 20(1)
PARTIES: ROWNTREE MACKINTOSH (IRELAND) PLC
and
FEDERATED WORKERS' UNION OF IRELAND
SUBJECT:
1. Dispute concerning redundancy entitlements for two former
employees.
BACKGROUND:
2. The claimants who worked in the Fox's Plant commenced their
employment with the Company on the 24th March, 1981. They were
let go on the 20th January, 1984, due to slackness. They were
re-called on the 20th March, 1984, and were again let go due to
slackness on the 4th January, 1985 (the Company terms them
temporary workers but the Union disagrees with this). Over the
years the Company has engaged temporary employees to supplement
the permanent staff to cover seasonal peaks, special orders or
high levels of absenteeism. It has kept lists of temporary
employees and people are engaged or terminated in accordance with
these lists except where someone is unable to take up employment
when called upon. Prior to its closure in September, 1986, the
Company called back the claimants on two occasions but they were
unable to return to work due to sickness. As a result of this,
the Company replaced the two of them. The Union contends that
they were not let go but were put to the end of the call-back
list.
When the Company closed, neither received the redundancy terms
awarded to the staff under L.C.R. 10697. The Union on their
behalf lodged a claim for these terms but this was rejected by the
Company. Both cases were referred separately to the Employment
Appeals Tribunal which in both cases accepted that the claimants
were on lay-off between January, 1985 and September, 1986, and
were therefore entitled to redundancy payments.
On the 16th December, 1987, at a meeting with Management, both
claimants were offered statutory entitlements but they refused and
sought the same terms as awarded to their former colleagues under
L.C.R. 10697. As the Company was unwilling to attend
conciliation, the Union referred the case to the Labour Court
under Section 20(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969,
agreeing beforehand to accept the Court's recommendation. A Court
hearing was held on the 15th April, 1988.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Company, prior to closure in September, 1986, called
both claimants back on two occasions but they were unable to
avail of the opportunity due to illness. Doctors'
certificates were given to the Company to this effect and were
accepted. It must be emphasised that the notice given for
call-back was extremely short. One of the claimants was
informed that if she was not resuming work immediately, she
would have to go to the end of the call-back list. However,
when making its case before the Employment Appeals Tribunal,
the Company stated that there were no lay-offs, merely
terminations and that the Union never pressed a claim for
redundancy on behalf of the claimants.
2. These statements were a complete fabrication.
Correspondence submitted to the Court will show that the
claimants were put on a lay-off situation and this can be
proven by the fact that the Company never severed its
connections with the claimants and failed to pay them their
statutory entitlements in 1984.
3. The Tribunal acknowledged the fact that the claimants were
on lay-off, that they came back in March, 1984, and were
subsequently laid-off again, with no statutory payments being
made. In addition, one of the workers in the Fox's Plant with
the same length of service as the claimants and who was put on
lay-off with the others, received her full entitlements.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Company has kept lists of temporary employees and
people are engaged or terminated in accordance with these
lists except where someone is unable to take up employment
when called upon. In situations where a person was unable to
accept an offer of work, irrespective of the reason, they were
removed from the lists.
2. This arrangement was strictly enforced by the Union and
the Company over the years because:
- people were needed when called upon
- people on occasion would choose the kind of work they
wanted and would return when it suited them
- a person more junior would not accept a situation where
he/she was keeping a position open for someone who was
choosing not to return and neither would the Union accept
this on their behalf.
4. 3. At a meeting concerning redundancies on the 20th March,
1986, the Unions representing all sections of the workforce
asked for a statement on the position of temporary workers.
In a letter to the Union on the 21st March, the Company listed
the temporary employees to whom there was a commitment, and
neither of the claimants were included. The exclusion of the
claimants was not raised by the Union or the claimants
themselves.
4. Throughout the negotiations on the re-organisation, the
Company made it clear that it would pay the terms of the
severance package negotiated with the Unions collectively to
people who were working up to the 26th September, 1986, - the
only exception being people who were unable to secure a
position between March and September, 1986, and wished to be
released (it was agreed that these people could be released
early and would be paid severance terms on the 26th September,
1986).
5. The Company has honoured its statutory commitment to the
claimants and has no further obligation to either.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. The Court finds that the claimants do not have an entitlement
to the terms of the redundancy package which was agreed with the
Unions. However, in view of the fact that they were not clearly
told at the time that their employment was terminated, they should
now be paid an ex gratia payment of £400 each.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
John M. Horgan
________________________
11th May, 1988. Chairman
D.H./J.C.