Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD89512 Case Number: LCR12520 Section / Act: S20(1) Parties: DUBLIN CARGO HANDLING LIMITED - and - MARINE PORT AND GENERAL WORKERS UNION |
Dispute concerning redundancy payments received by a worker.
Recommendation:
6. The Court having considered the submissions of the parties
finds that the redundancy scheme was negotiated in D.C.H. This
scheme was applied for by the worker concerned on a voluntary
basis, and accepted, albeit under protest.
The Court does not find grounds for changing the basis of
application to this worker of the terms of the redundancy scheme.
Division: MrMcGrath Mr Shiel Ms Ni Mhurchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD89512 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR12520
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 20(1)
PARTIES: DUBLIN CARGO HANDLING LIMITED
and
MARINE PORT AND GENERAL WORKERS UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Dispute concerning redundancy payments received by a worker.
BACKGROUND:
2. In 1971 the worker was employed as a docker/driver by Dublin
Maritime Limited following a number of years working in Dublin
docks. Dublin Cargo Handling (The Company) was established in
March, 1983 and acquired the stevedoring rights for the deep sea
section of Dublin docks, including that of Dublin Maritime
Limited. Arising from this all deep sea dockers were taken into
the permanent employment of the Company. An agreement was made
with Storecon Limited (a subsidiary company of Dublin Maritime
Limited) that the Company would provide it with labour. Dockers
and checkers are seconded to Storecon on a permanent basis and
rates and conditions of employment are negotiated separately by
the Union and Storecon.
3. In March, 1983 the worker concerned commenced employment with
Storecon. In 1985 a voluntary redundancy package was negotiated
between the Union and the Company. The formula agreed was the
basic wage plus #10 multiplied by four and a half weeks by years'
of service plus statutory payments. The worker applied for
voluntary redundancy. The worker's rate of pay with Storecon was
#214 per week while the rate applicable in the Company was #155
per week. The worker was informed that his redundancy money would
be calculated on the basis of the Company's basic rate which was
the rate applicable to the redundancy package. The worker took
voluntary redundancy in September, 1985 and received a sum based
on a basic rate of #155. He maintained that his basic rate in
Storecon should be used for calculating the sum. The Union is
claiming that the worker should receive an extra #8,820 redundancy
money and on 10th July, 1989 referred the matter to the Labour
Court for investigation and recommendation under Section 20(1) of
the Industrial Relations Act, 1969. The Union agreed to be bound
by the recommendation of the Court. The Court investigated the
dispute on 10th August, 1989.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. In 1985 the dockers' basic pay was #155 per week and this
worker's redundancy sum was calculated on this basis although
his basic rate at that time was #214 per week. This meant
that there was a shortfall of #8,820 in the worker's
redundancy sum. The worker accepted the smaller figure on the
clear understanding that he would pursue a claim for the
outstanding amount.
2. The Company's offer of 13th May, 1985 (details supplied to
the Court) clearly stated that the redundancy formula would
apply to basic pay. Two checker foremen applied for
redundancy at the same time as the worker and the redundancy
formula was applied to their basic rate of #211 per week.
The same principle should also apply to the worker. The
worker's letter of reference (details supplied to the Court),
clearly states that he was seconded to Storecon Limited from
the Company. In the circumstances, the worker should be paid
the additional sum of #8,820.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
5. 1. The worker was never paid #214 per week by the Company as
he was seconded to Storecon where the rates and conditions of
employment are negotiated separately. The Company offered a
voluntary package to its dockers based on a dockers basic rate
of #155 per week. Storecon did not offer redundancy to any of
its dockers and when this worker took redundancy he was
replaced by another worker seconded to Storecon.
2. The terms of the redundancy offer were clearly explained
to the worker before he left and were not forced upon him by
the Company. It is unreasonable to expect the Company to
apply a basic rate to a formula which was never intended to
cater for wage rates negotiated and paid in outside concerns
and over which the Company has no control. There is no
justification or merit in this claim.
RECOMMENDATION:
6. The Court having considered the submissions of the parties
finds that the redundancy scheme was negotiated in D.C.H. This
scheme was applied for by the worker concerned on a voluntary
basis, and accepted, albeit under protest.
The Court does not find grounds for changing the basis of
application to this worker of the terms of the redundancy scheme.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Tom McGrath
__________________________
18th August, 1989 Deputy Chairman.
U.M./J.C.