Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD88463 Case Number: LCR12061 Section / Act: S67 Parties: ROSCREA BACON COMPANY LIMITED - and - IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION |
Claim by the Union on behalf of approximately 19 former employees for an enhanced redundancy payment.
Recommendation:
5. The Court having regard to all the circumstances of the
negotiation of this redundancy package recommends the following
improvements.
The workers who have voluntarily accepted redundancy terms at the
rate of £70 per year of service should receive a further £30 per
year of service.
The two workers, who because of personal financial circumstances
accepted redundancy on statutory terms only and the four workers
who were on long term sick leave should be given a sum equivalent
to the rebate on their statutory payments on an ex-gratia basis.
The Court does not recommend any other changes in the package.
Division: CHAIRMAN Mr Collins Mr Walsh
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD88463 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR12061
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 67
PARTIES: ROSCREA BACON COMPANY LIMITED
(REPRESENTED BY THE FEDERATED UNION OF EMPLOYERS)
AND
IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Claim by the Union on behalf of approximately 19 former
employees for an enhanced redundancy payment.
BACKGROUND:
2. Early this year a major rationalisation programme was
undertaken and 23 employees became redundant. This claim concerns
19 of these, who following negotiations received a final
compensatory payment of £70 per year of service plus statutory
entitlement on acceptance of redundancy. The workers made
redundant were divided into 3 groups:-
(a) Lorry drivers: Statutory redundancy plus minimum
notice, (these have got contract work with the
Company);
(b) Volunteers: Statutory, plus £70 per year of
service plus minimum notice;
(c) Disability/Early Retirement: Statutory only.
The Union says that the workers accepted changes in work
practices and redundancies under threat of closure.
It claims that the workers concerned should receive enhanced
redundancy compensation and that this should be extended to the
disability cases. Local discussions failed to resolve the issue
and on 2nd March, 1988, the matter was referred to the
conciliation service of the Labour Court. No agreement was
reached at a conciliation conference held on 19th April, 1988, and
on 27th June, 1988, the matter was referred to the Labour Court
for investigation and recommendation. A Court hearing took place
on 20th Septebmer, 1988, in Nenagh.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Company has gained enormously from the rationalisation
and as a result are embarking on building a new plant at a
cost of £7m. In the context of the savings generated by a
reduction in the workforce and by the increase in productivity
from the remaining workers, the Union believes that the
workers concerned should receive statutory redundancy, minimum
notice payment and payment of 2 weeks' per year of service.
2. The Company excluded 2 workers from the offer of statutory
redundancy plus £70 per year of service. These workers
accepted statutory terms only while discussions on enhancement
were underway. The Company discriminated against these
workers who because of personal financial problems, were
forced to accept minimum terms.
3. Two lorry drivers who were made redundant and then offered
work as contractors, only received statutory terms. The Union
believes that they are entitled to enhanced terms as the
Company ceased long distance haulage and they were very much
involved in a redundancy situation.
4. It was agreed to include 4 workers on long term illness in
the redundancy because there was not sufficient volunteers for
redundancy and because of the physical demands of the extra
workload, which neither the Company nor workers involved felt
that they would be fit for. These workers have given over 25
years' service to the Company and should not be treated less
favourably than the bulk of these who were made redundant.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Company are competing in a cut-throat business and in
spite of reorganisation and improved efficiencies are
continuing to accumulate losses, (details supplied to the
Court). The cost of the 1988, redundancy package was
£76,490.47 nett.
2. The Union has claimed, in addition to statutory, two
weeks' pay per year of service. To concede this claim would
cost the Company £129,414.00. This money is not available and
the Company could not afford to increase its current offer.
4. 3. The Company, while forming part of the meat division of
Avonmore, must stand on its own two feet. It is working
towards improving efficiencies and acknowledges the
constructive role played by the Union in this regard.
However, if a future is to be secured then the Company must
stop the losses and make its way back to profitability in the
near future. It is vital, therefore, in order to sustain the
support both of the banks and the major shareholder, from whom
the Company will need significant contributions if the longer
term future of the Company is to be secured, that they perform
adequately in the short term.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. The Court having regard to all the circumstances of the
negotiation of this redundancy package recommends the following
improvements.
The workers who have voluntarily accepted redundancy terms at the
rate of £70 per year of service should receive a further £30 per
year of service.
The two workers, who because of personal financial circumstances
accepted redundancy on statutory terms only and the four workers
who were on long term sick leave should be given a sum equivalent
to the rebate on their statutory payments on an ex-gratia basis.
The Court does not recommend any other changes in the package.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court.
John M. Horgan
___6th__October,__1988. ___________________
B. O'N. / M. F. Chairman