Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD89649 Case Number: LCR12593 Section / Act: S67 Parties: MAGCOBAR (IRELAND) LIMITED - and - IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION |
Dispute concerning the amount of redundancy payment to be made to 19 workers.
Recommendation:
5. Having carefully considered the submissions and arguments made
at the hearing the Court recommends, that without prejudice to the
conflicting interpretations of the parties as to what had been
agreed and provided in the past, the Company should offer an
additional #1500 to each of the 19 workers to be made redundant on
the 20th October, 1989 in lieu of the #5,000 already offered and
the Union should accept this in full settlement of this dispute.
Division: Ms Owens Mr McHenry Mr O'Murchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD89649 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR12593
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 67
PARTIES: MAGCOBAR (IRELAND) LIMITED
(REPRESENTED BY THE FEDERATION OF IRISH EMPLOYERS)
and
IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Dispute concerning the amount of redundancy payment to be made
to 19 workers.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Company is engaged in open cast mining at Silvermines,
Nenagh. In May, 1982 the Labour Court investigated a dispute
between the parties concerning enhanced redundancy payments. The
Court's Recommendation (L.C.R. 7216) formed the basis for an extra
statutory redundancy compensation formula which was accepted and
signed by both parties in 1983. In August, 1986 the Company
sought eight voluntary redundancies and paid the workers in
accordance with the Company's interpretation of the agreed
redundancy formula. The Union questioned the Company's
interpretation of the redundancy formula and as no agreement was
reached the matter was referred to the Labour Court for
investigation and recommendation. The Court issued a
recommendation (L.C.R. 11196) on 21st May, 1987, which found that
the calculations made by the Company were strictly in accordance
with the agreed formula and recommended that the Company give
favourable consideration to amending the agreement in accordance
with the Union's wishes. In August, 1989 the Company informed the
Union that it was making all of its 19 members redundant as of
20th October, 1989. The Company offered to pay redundancy in
accordance with the redundancy formula which was originally agreed
in 1983. The Union rejected this offer. The Union claims that
the 1983 agreement envisaged that the Company would provide a
total sum of money based on service, output, and statutory
entitlements for distribution amongst the workers and that the
redundancy formula was flawed because the sum of the redundancy
payments which would be made to each worker on the basis of the
formula was less than the total sum of money which it was
envisaged would be provided by the Company. No agreement was
reached and the matter was referred to the conciliation service of
the Labour Court on 25th August, 1989. A conciliation conference
was held on 12th September, 1989 and as no agreement could be
reached the matter was referred to the Labour Court for
investigation and recommendation. A Court investigation into the
dispute was held in Nenagh on 11th October, 1989 and a
recommendation was issued to the parties by letter on 13th
October, 1989.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. In line with L.C.R. No. 7216 a fund equal to 6 times
statutory entitlement, index linked, was created and payment
was to be made on the basis of both service and tonnage mined.
This fund was in addition to statutory entitlements. It was
the intention that the total fund would be distributed amongst
all the employees. However the formula for distribution of
the fund is flawed and has not provided for a total
distribution of the fund.
2. The sum of the individual redundancy entitlements as
calculated by the Company is less than the total fund which
the Company undertook to provide. The workers are entitled to
the balance which should be distributed amongst them.
3. The Unions claim will not involve the Company in any
additional cost above that originally envisaged.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Company's offer to pay redundancy in accordance with
the agreed formula fully complies with its duties in respect
of the workers concerned. The formula may be complex but it
was agreed by both parties following L.C.R. No. 7216.
2. The application of the formula gives rise to significant
redundancy payments. In a gesture of goodwill the Company
recalculated the payments in a manner beneficial to the
workers to the extent of just over #5,000. This offer was
indicative of the Company's responsible approach to the matter
but was rejected by the Union.
3. The Company does not accept the Union's interpretation of
the agreement on redundancy entitlements and rejects claims
for further increases in redundancy payments.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. Having carefully considered the submissions and arguments made
at the hearing the Court recommends, that without prejudice to the
conflicting interpretations of the parties as to what had been
agreed and provided in the past, the Company should offer an
additional #1500 to each of the 19 workers to be made redundant on
the 20th October, 1989 in lieu of the #5,000 already offered and
the Union should accept this in full settlement of this dispute.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Evelyn Owens
________________________
6th November, 1989. Deputy Chairman
A.S./J.C.