Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD90414 Case Number: LCR12976 Section / Act: S67 Parties: IRISH INDUSTRIAL EXPLOSIVES LIMITED - and - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION |
Claim by the Union on behalf of 47 workers concerning the terms of a redundancy package and compensation for the working of increased hours.
Recommendation:
6. Having considered the submissions of the parties, the Court is
of the view that the redundancy terms proposed by the Company
should be amended as set out below and recommends that these be
accepted by the Union. The Court further recommends that the
compensation payment in respect of the revised working conditions
in the new plant should be increased to #1,500 per employee.
Redundancy Terms
10-12 years service #20,000
13-14 " " #24,000
15-16 " " #28,000
17-18 " " #32,000
19-20 " " #36,000
Over 20 years service #40,000
(All above figures are inclusive of statutory and notice).
Division: CHAIRMAN Mr Collins Mr O'Murchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD90414 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR12976
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 67
PARTIES: IRISH INDUSTRIAL EXPLOSIVES LIMITED
(Represented by the Federation of Irish Employers)
and
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Claim by the Union on behalf of 47 workers concerning the
terms of a redundancy package and compensation for the working of
increased hours.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Company is involved in the manufacturing of nitroglycerine
- based explosives. In 1989, it decided to invest #1.5m in
building a new plant to produce slurry-type explosives which are
more effective and safer to use and produce. The new explosives
do not have the hazards normally associated with nitroglycerine.
The Company informed the Union that the changeover to the new
plant would be a gradual one with certain operations being
continued for some time after the new plant commenced production.
The Union was further informed that 10-15 redundancies would be
required on a phased basis beginning 4-6 months after the new
plant went into production. The Company also stated that the
conditions of employment in the new plant would be in line with
normal industrial practice, particularly as regards hours of work
i.e. the working week would be 39 hours. The workers usually
finish work at lunch-time, however, as the new plant would be
operationally much safer the Company will require the workers to
attend for a normal weeks working. The Union, on 25th April,
1990, claimed that 10 weeks pay per year of service, exclusive of
statutory entitlements, and a full pension rebate should be given
to all those choosing redundancy. The Company offered amounts
varying from #12,000 for those with 10-12 year service to #17,000
for those with 20 + years service, exclusive of statutory. The
Union rejected the Company's proposals and informed the Company
that in the event of the commencement of production on the new
roster of a 39 hour week prior to agreement on redundancy terms
and conditions of employment in a 39 hour week situation,
industrial action would be taken.
3. On 2nd July, 1999, the dispute was referred to the
conciliation service of the Labour Court. During the course of
conciliation conferences held on 9th, 13th and 18th July, 1990,
the parties agreed on conditions in the new factory, including the
working of a 39 hour week. The Company increased its offer on
redundancy to the following:-
10 - 12 years service #20,000
13 - 14 years service #22,000
15 - 16 years service #24,000
17 - 18 years service #26,000
19 - 20 years service #28,000
Over 20 years service #30,000
(Inclusive of statutory and notice).
The Company also offered #500 compensation for working a 39 hour
week in the new plant. The Union rejected this offer and sought
#3,000 for working the 39 hour week and compensation of 7 weeks
pay per year of service, plus statutory, plus payment in lieu of
notice for redundancy. As agreement could not be reached on these
issues the matter was referred to the Labour Court on 24th July,
1990, for investigation and recommendation. The Court
investigated the dispute on 30th July, 1990.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Union believes that compensation for redundancy
amounting to 7 weeks pay per year of service, plus statutory
entitlement, plus payment in lieu of notice is reasonable in
the circumstances of this case. Similar terms have been
agreed in a number of the more prosperous and profitable
employments in recent times. The Union believes that this
Company would be counted among the more prosperous
employments.
2. Such terms would pay the workers, whose gross wages are
approximately #400 per week, approximately #50,000 for those
with over 20 years service and proportionally less for those
with fewer years service.
3. At present the workers concerned work between 20 and 34
hours per week. They work on the basis of job and finish
because of the conditions which could be deemed to be
unhealthy. This is done by custom and practice and agreement
with the Company. The Union claim for #3,000 compensation for
the increased working hours involved in a 39 hour week is not
unreasonable.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
5. 1. The Company has made a very generous proposal on
redundancy compensation which ensures that those leaving the
Company will do so on excellent terms. Against the background
of average earnings of #350 per week it can be seen that the
proposals are very generous.
5. 2. The Company views the Union's claim as fanciful. The
fact is that the Company is a small, privately owned firm,
which though operating profitably, has not got the financial
resources to invest in new plant and pay out very high
redundancy payments on the basis of income levels which are
extremely high by any standards.
3. The basis for the Union's claim for compensation for the
move to the new plant appears to be that the move will require
more onerous attendance levels. The current position is that
workers are required to attend at minimum from 8.00 a.m. to
1.00 p.m. This practice originally applied to those workers
who were required to handle nitroglycerine explosives which
can cause headaches. Over the years the practice has extended
to other groups. The new plant has invalidated the need for
this practice. Furthermore the Company needs to work at
maximum capacity to ensure that its investment in the new
plant is viable. It is therefore not prepared to consider
anything less than a 39 hour week. Existing pay rates are
based on the liability to working these normal hours.
4. In an effort to reach agreement the Company is prepared
to make a payment of #500 to all workers who transfer to the
new plant. The Union's claim for #3,000 is completely over
the top. The Company views any payment made as a 'gesture'
only and as not justified except as a measure of goodwill.
RECOMMENDATION:
6. Having considered the submissions of the parties, the Court is
of the view that the redundancy terms proposed by the Company
should be amended as set out below and recommends that these be
accepted by the Union. The Court further recommends that the
compensation payment in respect of the revised working conditions
in the new plant should be increased to #1,500 per employee.
Redundancy Terms
10-12 years service #20,000
13-14 " " #24,000
15-16 " " #28,000
17-18 " " #32,000
19-20 " " #36,000
Over 20 years service #40,000
(All above figures are inclusive of statutory and notice).
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Heffernan
9th August, 1990 ----------------
B O'N/U.S. Chairman