Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD90145 Case Number: LCR12798 Section / Act: S67 Parties: MEMORY IRELAND (COMPUTERS) LIMITED - and - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION |
Claim on behalf of a worker for an enhanced redundancy lump sum.
Recommendation:
8. The Court recommends that in the event of a surplus being
available to the Receiver when the process of liquidation has been
completed, the worker be granted a sum equivalent to three weeks'
per year of service.
Division: Mr O'Connell Mr Brennan Mr Devine
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD90145 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR12798
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 67
PARTIES: MEMORY IRELAND (COMPUTERS) LIMITED
(REPRESENTED BY SOMMERS & ASSOCIATES)
and
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Claim on behalf of a worker for an enhanced redundancy lump
sum.
BACKGROUND:
2. Memory Computers Limited was formed in 1975 and experienced a
period of rapid expansion during the 1980's. As part of the
expansion the Company acquired the Bryan S. Ryan Olivetti Computer
Division in 1983. The takeover included the transfer of a number
of Bryan S. Ryan staff to the Memory Group including the worker
here concerned as a service engineer.
3. The worker here concerned commenced employment with Bryan S.
Ryan in 1950 and at the time of his redundancy from Memory Ireland
(Computers) Limited had approximately 40 years service.
4. The Company issued redundancy notices in January, 1990 and
offered to pay minimum statutory redundancy lump sum to the
worker. The Union lodged a claim for the payment of lump sum of 3
weeks' pay per year of service plus retention of his Company car.
The Company rejected the claim on the basis that it was undergoing
a financial restructuring process in order to overcome short term
financial difficulties.
5. The matter was referred to the conciliation service of the
Labour Court. A conciliation conference was held on 16th January,
1990. As no agreement was reached the parties consented to a
referral to the Labour Court for investigation and recommendation.
A Court hearing was held on 30th March, 1990.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
6. 1. The Company was put into receivership a few days prior to
this hearing. The Union understands that the Receiver will be
endeavouring to sell off subsidiary companies to interested
parties. Notwithstanding these events it is the Union's view
that its claim is fair and reasonable and is in line, and in
some cases, below settlements prevailing in industry general
(details supplied to the Court). The claim is also in line
with previous Labour Court recommendations.
2. The worker concerned who has over 40 years' service, is in
his mid 50's and employment prospects in a similar field or
elsewhere are difficult.
3. In June, 1989 the Company agreed voluntary redundancy
terms in excess of the statutory minimum redundancy in the
case of another worker plus arrangements for him to retain his
Company car (details supplied to the Court).
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
7. 1. All the Company's employees were made redundant and were
paid their entitlements from the Redundancy Solvency Fund as
there were insufficient funds available within the Company to
meet these payments.
2. The Receiver has been unable to sell off any of the
companies as a going concern. At this stage the financial
situation of the Group appears to be worse than originally
anticipated. It seems unlikely that all the preferential
creditors will be paid in full.
RECOMMENDATION:
8. The Court recommends that in the event of a surplus being
available to the Receiver when the process of liquidation has been
completed, the worker be granted a sum equivalent to three weeks'
per year of service.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
John O'Connell
_____________________
23rd April, 1990 Deputy Chairman.
M.D./J.C.