Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD8834 Case Number: LCR11865 Section / Act: S20(1) Parties: SYNTHETIC INDUSTRIES LIMITED - and - IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION |
Claim on behalf of 2 workers for severance payments.
Recommendation:
9. The Court having considered the submissions from both parties
and in view of the particular circumstances relating to the
service of the two claimants recommends the Company pay a
severance allowance in accordance with the terms of the agreed
package.
Division: Ms Owens Mr Heffernan Mr O'Murchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD8834 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR11865
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 20(1)
PARTIES: SYNTHETIC INDUSTRIES LIMITED
(Represented by the Federated Union of Employers)
and
IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Claim on behalf of 2 workers for severance payments.
BACKGROUND:
2. In March, 1987, the Company informed the Union that it was
necessary to declare 108 workers in the polyprophylene section
redundant.
3. Following lengthy discussions on the matter severance payments
exclusive of statutory redundancy entitlements for the workers
being made redundant were agreed (details supplied to the Court).
4. The 2 workers concerned were not paid any redundancy money
when the plant closed. They subsequently claimed the payment of a
redundancy lump sum plus severance payment. The Company rejected
their claims on the basis that they held temporary positions in
the Company and that their service had been broken by a number of
breaks due to lay-off (details supplied to the Court).
5. The workers then referred their cases to the Employment
Appeals Tribunal under the Redundancy Payments Acts. The Tribunal
found in their favour and they have since been paid their
statutory redundancy lump sum entitlement by the Company. The
workers then claimed severance payment appropriate to their
category of service. The Company rejected the claim on the basis
that the sum of money (#116,280) which was made available to pay
severance was now exhausted.
6. The Union referred the matter to a Rights Commissioner for
investigation and recommendation. The Company declined an
invitation to attend a Rights Commissioner's investigation. The
Company also declined an invitation to attend a Conciliation
Conference. The Union then referred the case for investigation
and recommendation by the Labour Court under Section 20(1)
Industrial Relations Act, 1969. A Court hearing was held in
Tullamore on 3rd May, 1987.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
7. 1. The two workers concerned are entitled to the same
treatment as their fellow workers who received severance
payments. They have established, through the Employment
Appeals Tribunal, that their dismissal was on grounds of
redundancy.
2. The Company's argument that the money is not there to pay
them because the fund for severance payments is now used up
is not acceptable. The Company is part of a multi-national
operation and to find the money to meet this small claim is
well within its capability.
3. In view of the co-operation that the Company has received
from the workforce both present and former and its obviously
strong position there is no reason whatsoever why the Company
cannot come to terms with such a small claim.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
8. 1. During negotiations with the Union concerning
redundancies (including a National Group Secretary of that
Union) held in March of 1987, it was agreed that a sum of
#116,280 was to be made available by the Company to be
divided up between all of those who were being made redundant
at that time. The money was to be distributed in accordance
with an agreed formula. The number of employees who would be
eligible for the payment was also agreed and it is important
to note that upon a request by the Union, an additional
employee was added to the list, thereby reducing the amount
available for the distribution among persons in that employee
category.
2. The position agreed between the parties was that the sum
for distribution (#116,280) was a maximum amount to be
distributed among all of the employees to be made redundant
and that no further monies would be made available for
severance pay.
3. The correct time for the Union representative to make
representations on behalf of the workers would have been
March of 1987 and no representations were made at that time.
4. The simple fact is that the money has now been expended
and there are no further monies available to meet the claim
of the workers.
RECOMMENDATION:
9. The Court having considered the submissions from both parties
and in view of the particular circumstances relating to the
service of the two claimants recommends the Company pay a
severance allowance in accordance with the terms of the agreed
package.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
26th May, 1988 Evelyn Owens
M.D./P.W. Deputy Chairman