Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD90356 Case Number: LCR12985 Section / Act: S20(1) Parties: CPL MOTOR FACTORS LIMITED - and - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION |
Dispute concerning the severance terms of two workers.
Recommendation:
5. Having considered the submissions the Court recommends that
the Company pay a further sum equal to the statutory amount
already paid to the claimants.
Division: Ms Owens Mr Keogh Ms Ni Mhurchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD90356 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR12985
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 20(1)
PARTIES: CPL MOTOR FACTORS LIMITED
(REPRESENTED BY STEEN O'REILLY & COMPANY)
AND
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Dispute concerning the severance terms of two workers.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Company is involved in the retail of motor parts. Until
recently the business was carried out in two locations, Maynooth
and Navan. However, due to financial losses in the Navan branch
the Company decided to close this branch and on 31st March, 1990
ceased trading in Navan. There were four workers employed in the
branch who received their statutory entitlements including
redundancy pay, etc. Two of these workers leased the shop
premises from the Company and are trading in motor parts. The
other two workers have been employed by the Company for twelve and
seven years respectively and the Union on their behalf is claiming
improved severance terms of a minimum of three weeks pay per year
of service, in addition to the statutory entitlement. The Company
declined invitations to attend a local level meeting and a
conciliation conference and on 30th May, 1990 the Union referred
the matter to the Labour Court for investigation and
recommendation under Section 20(1) of the Industrial Relations
Act, 1969. The Union agreed to be bound by the recommendation of
the Court. The Court investigated the dispute on 27th July, 1990.
At the hearing the Company made an offer of #500 to each of the
workers.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. When the workers were issued with their redundancy
notices, the employer indicated that he was interested in
leasing out the shop premises. One of the workers concerned
here discussed this option with the employer with a view to
leasing the premises and employing at least one of his work
colleagues. The employer responded very positively to this
and requested the worker to draw up draft terms for a lease
agreement which could also feature an understanding regarding
supply of motor parts on a wholesale basis. This draft was to
be completed by the time the employer returned from a weeks
holiday. The worker was also advised by the employer that two
other workers had declared an interest in a leasing
arrangement. However, on his return the employer without any
discussion, advised the worker that he had entered into a
leasing arrangement with two of the other workers employed.
3. 2. The two workers have been employed by the Company for
twelve and seven years respectively. In October, 1987 the
first worker was transferred from the Maynooth branch where he
was parts manager to the Navan branch (with a travelling
allowance), to cover the absence of a sales assistant and was
then retained there. The other worker commenced employment in
the Navan branch in November, 1982 and was also the local key
holder of the shop. The two workers should receive a minimum
of three weeks pay per year of service in addition to the
statutory entitlement. This claim is in line with average
severance terms agreed both locally and nationally, where the
average terms are between three and four weeks. Labour Court
recommendations have also supported and provided this level of
severance pay. The other two workers have been accommodated
by the employer who benefits under this situation. In all the
circumstances the Union's claim should be conceded.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. Over the last number of years the Navan branch has been
losing money steadily each year and it was therefore decided
to close this branch. When the employer informed the workers
of his intention to close the branch he was approached by two
of the workers who indicated that they wished to take a lease
of the premises and continue trading in a smaller way and such
a lease was arranged. Statutory notices were served on all
four workers and when the Company ceased trading the workers
were paid their full statutory entitlements. The Company is
prepared to pay the two workers a further #500 each.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. Having considered the submissions the Court recommends that
the Company pay a further sum equal to the statutory amount
already paid to the claimants.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court,
Evelyn Owens
___20th___August,___1990. ___________________
U. M. / M. F. Deputy Chairman