Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD89252 Case Number: LCR12395 Section / Act: S20(1) Parties: DELICON IMPORTS LIMITED - and - IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION |
Claim for the implementation of the Programme for National Recovery (P.N.R.) for a five month period before the termination of a worker's employment.
Recommendation:
4. Having considered the submissions made by the parties, the
Court recommends that the Company pay the claimant the sum of
#89.67 in addition to the #200 already paid.
Division: Mr Fitzgerald Mr Collins Ms Ni Mhurchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD89252 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR12395
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 20(1)
PARTIES: DELICON IMPORTS LIMITED
(REPRESENTED BY THE FEDERATED UNION OF EMPLOYERS)
and
IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Claim for the implementation of the Programme for National
Recovery (P.N.R.) for a five month period before the termination
of a worker's employment.
BACKGROUND:
2. The worker concerned commenced employment with the Company as
a book-keeper in February, 1988. Her starting weekly wage was
#153.60 per week. Early in 1988 the Company and the Union met to
discuss the implementation of the P.N.R. and it was agreed that
its terms would apply from 1st July, 1988. The worker concerned
was not a member of the Union at this time and the wage increase
was not given to her by the Company. The worker then requested
the Union to act on her behalf. In October, 1988 the Company
advised the Union of its intention to terminate the worker's
employment as from 20th November, 1988 because of rationalisation.
Following local meetings the Union claimed a payment of #600 plus
the terms of the P.N.R. as a basis for settlement. The Company
made an offer of #200, but refused to include the terms of the
P.N.R. (which amounted to an extra #89.67). Further local
discussions failed to resolve the issue and, as the Company was
unwilling to attend a conciliation conference, the Union referred
the dispute to the Labour Court under Section 20(1) of the
Industrial Relations Act, 1969 and agreed to be bound by the
Court's decision. A Court hearing was held on the 4th May, 1989.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. When the worker commenced employment in February, 1988 the
Company indicated that she would receive an increase in wages
after six months. The increase would amount to #600 p.a. In
June, 1988 the worker was on sick leave for one week. On
return to work the Company requested that she immediately
train her subordinate to take up her duties should she be
absent again. She did so, and was assured by Management that
her future was secure. The person who was trained in her
duties received an increase of #1000 p.a.
2. The Union reluctantly agreed to accept the Company's
decision to terminate the worker's employment on the proviso
that:
1. She would receive the #600 increase promised from
July, to date of termination of employment (20th
November, 1988) and
2. The terms of the P.N.R. would also be applied on the
same basis.
Local negotiations took place between the Union and the
Company's representative and a settlement of #200 plus the
P.N.R. was mooted. This was accepted by the Union but the
Company reneged on the offer and refused to pay. The worker
concerned feels deeply aggrieved at the Company's attitude and
the Union requests that the Court uphold the worker's claim.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The worker's employment was of approximately ten months
duration and the Company was not aware of her union membership
until representations were made on her behalf in November,
1988. The P.N.R. did not automatically apply to her because
she was not a union member at the time of agreement. In
December, 1988 the Company sent a letter to the worker and
enclosed a cheque for #200.
2. The Company feels that it was not obliged to pay the
worker any termination payment based on arguments provided by
the Union. They agreed to do so, however, and believe that
the #200 paid was sufficient. It must be emphasised that in
the past the Union never negotiated on behalf of a
book-keeper.
3. The Company realised that there was insufficient work for
the employee and was forced to reduce its staff complement
from four to three. Management feel therefore that they were
quite justified in terminating her employment, and feel that
she was adequately compensated.
RECOMMENDATION:
4. Having considered the submissions made by the parties, the
Court recommends that the Company pay the claimant the sum of
#89.67 in addition to the #200 already paid.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Nicholas Fitzgerald
_______________________
15th May, 1989 Deputy Chairman.
T.O'D./J.C.