Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD90438 Case Number: LCR12979 Section / Act: S67 Parties: ODLUM GROUP LIMITED - and - AMALGAMATED TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS UNION |
Dispute concerning the redundancy terms of four workers.
Recommendation:
5. The Court having considered all of the issues raised by the
parties in their oral and written submissions recommends that the
following compensation formula be applied to those workers being
made redundant.
3.50 weeks pay for each year of service plus State Redundancy to a
maximum of two years basic pay plus 10% of any amount in excess of
two years basic pay plus #1,500.
Division: MrMcGrath Mr Brennan Mr O'Murchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD90438 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR12979
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 67
PARTIES: ODLUM GROUP LIMITED
(REPRESENTED BY THE FEDERATION OF IRISH EMPLOYERS)
AND
AMALGAMATED TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Dispute concerning the redundancy terms of four workers.
BACKGROUND:
2. The four workers concerned are employed at the Company's
Alexandra Road (Dublin) mill. As the result of a re-organisation
programme the Company wishes to terminate the employment of the
workers on the 31st August, 1990, and has offered the following
redundancy package:
3.50 weeks pay per year of service
plus Statutory redundancy to a maximum of #20,000
plus 10% of any amount over #20,000
plus #1,500.
These terms emerged as the result of a previous Labour Court
investigation and Recommendation concerning a dispute at the
Portarlington mill in 1988. (LCR 12335 refers). The Union has
rejected the Company offer and is claiming:
5.50 weeks pay per year of service up to age 41,
6.50 weeks pay per year of service over age 41,
plus statutory redundancy,
plus 10% of the total with no ceiling.
Management rejected the Union's proposal. Local discussions
failed to resolve the issue which was referred to the conciliation
service of the Labour Court on the 24th July, 1990. A
conciliation conference was held on the 26th July, 1990 but no
agreement was reached. The dispute was referred to the Labour
Court on the 27th July, 1990. A Court hearing was held on the 8th
August, 1990.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Union's proposed settlement terms are those which have
applied over the years in the Dublin area where the employees
concerned are employed and anything less is not acceptable.
The formula offered by the Company does not give adequate
compensation for the long service of the workers (details
supplied to the Court).
2. The workers (because of their ages) have no chance of
obtaining jobs with pension entitlements. This aspect of the
redundancy has not been recognised by the Company. The major
pension earning years of the workers concerned are behind them
and the likelihood of getting jobs with the same level of
earnings is remote. The Company is forcing workers, who
expected to remain in employment until their retirement, on to
the dole with no extra added years for pension purposes.
3. The Company is financially healthy and in a position to
adequately compensate these workers who have given long and
exemplary service.
4. The Union's proposed compensation package is reasonable.
The Union also requests that in recognition of the workers
being let go before pension age that the Court recommend added
years for pension purposes.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Company is in a position where it must continue to
rationalise in order to bring its cost structure into line and
compete on a viable basis with European imports. It is
essential that competitive working practices and employment
levels are adopted immediately. As part of the current phase
of ongoing rationalisation management has identified a further
26 jobs which must be made redundant in order to ensure the
Company's survival.
2. The trading circumstances presently obtaining are vastly
different to those of the early to mid eighties. This fact
was recognised by the Court in early 1989 when it issued its
recommendation (LCR 12335). Since then the situation has
worsened for the Company, however the terms offered have not
been adjusted because management recognises the long service
of the workers concerned.
3. These terms have been accepted by numerous other workers
in the Odlum group who have been made redundant as part of the
current rationalisation programme.