Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD88433 Case Number: LCR12039 Section / Act: S67 Parties: JOHN RAFTERY & SONS LIMITED - and - IRISH DISTRIBUTIVE AND ADMINISTRATIVE TRADE UNION |
Claim on behalf of one worker for enhanced redundancy compensation.
Recommendation:
5. The Court, having regard to all the circumstances of this
case, recommends that the claimant be paid an additional £3,000 in
settlement of this claim.
Division: CHAIRMAN Mr McHenry Mr Devine
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD88433 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR12039
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 67
PARTIES: JOHN RAFTERY & SONS LIMITED
(Represented by the Federated Union of Employers)
and
IRISH DISTRIBUTIVE AND ADMINISTRATIVE TRADE UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Claim on behalf of one worker for enhanced redundancy
compensation.
BACKGROUND:
2. John Raftery & Sons Limited is a small retail outlet selling
electrical and musical goods and furniture. It is a family
concern and employs twelve people. The worker here concerned
commenced work with the Company in March, 1971 as a cashier and
subsequently moved to the office for general clerical duties.
Since 1982 the Company has suffered a downturn in business and as
a result has reduced staff numbers through non-replacement. Also,
the worker here concerned was on short-time for a period of
fifteen months from February, 1985. However, over the summer of
1986 it became apparent that redundancies would be required. It
was decided that the worker here concerned would be made
redundant. This redundancy was not put into effect until 20th
May, 1988. The worker was paid her statutory redundancy
entitlements. The Union, on her behalf, sought the payment of
three times her statutory entitlements plus the Company's rebate.
This claim was rejected by the Company. As no agreement could be
reached at local level the matter was referred to the conciliation
service of the Labour Court. No basis for a settlement could be
reached at a conciliation conference held on 2nd June, 1988 and
the matter was referred to the Labour Court for investigation and
recommendation. A Court investigation into the dispute was held
in Galway on 14th September, 1988.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Union's claim is based on the terms recommended by
the Labour Court in the case of Corbett & Sons Limited both
for office staff and for sales and general staff
(Recommendation Nos. LCR9493 and LCR11639 refer).
2. This worker was the only one apparently affected by the
cutbacks. She was on short-time working for a period but was
brought back full time to take care of the backlog of clerical
work which had built up. Subsequently she was made redundant.
3. The Union is not aware of any previous redundancy in the
Company.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Company has been making considerable losses for the
past six years. It has had to contract its operation by
moving out of its Lombard Street premises and by reducing
staff through natural wastage where possible. The decision to
make the worker redundant was made against the background of
continuing losses and in an attempt to secure the future of
the Company.
2. The Company held off making the worker redundant for as
long as possible for humanitarian reasons and in the hope that
business would pick up. In the last months of her employment
the Company was generating work to keep the worker busy.
Under these circumstances the Company feels that it has more
than paid its dues to the worker who was a loyal employee but
who, in the end, had to be sacrificed.
3. At this stage the Company is in a survival mould and it
considers that the payment of any enhanced settlement in this
case would be completely unjustified in the circumstances.
4. In the past the Company has reduced overheads through a
policy of non-replacement of people leaving its service. In
the only previous redundancy statutory payments only were
made. The Company can see no reason to break this precedent.
5. At the time of the Courts recommendations in the Corbett
& Sons cases that company was considerably larger than this
one.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. The Court, having regard to all the circumstances of this
case, recommends that the claimant be paid an additional £3,000 in
settlement of this claim.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
John M Horgan
27th September, 1988 --------------
R.B./U.S. Chairman