Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD89883 Case Number: LCR12711 Section / Act: S67 Parties: TEDCASTLES OIL PRODUCTS LTD - and - THE IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION;DUBLIN NO. 2 BRANCH |
Claim that Clerical staff should be paid the same severance payment as Distribution Operatives.
Recommendation:
9. Having considered the submissions of the parties, the Court is
of the view that there is sufficient difference in the
circumstances of the two groups of workers to justify a different
redundancy package for each. Accordingly, the Court does not
recommend concession of the Union claim.
Division: CHAIRMAN Mr McHenry Mr O'Murchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD89883 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR12711
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 67
PARTIES: TEDCASTLES OIL PRODUCTS LTD
and
THE IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION
(DUBLIN NO. 2 BRANCH)
SUBJECT:
1. Claim that Clerical staff should be paid the same severance
payment as Distribution Operatives.
BACKGROUND:
2. In June, 1989 the Company proposed voluntary redundancy terms
to their Clerical staff:-
(i) Company would have the right to refuse individual
applications.
(ii) Monetary compensation of:
(a) 7 week's pay for each year of service, or the
nearest half-year upwards, plus
(b) Statutory entitlements, plus
(c) Whatever entitlements would have accrued to
the individual under the non-contributory
Pension Scheme.
3. The Union sought #15,000/#20,000 per individual in addition to
the Company's proposal. The claim for the additional sought was
based on the fact that the Company's Distribution Operatives get a
distribution contract or #15,000/#20,000 (depending on service)
for those who did not get a contract, when under a productivity
agreement of May, 1988, the Company ceased its distribution
activities. The Company rejected the claim. Four (4) workers
accepted the Company's offer on condition that the matter be
referred to the Labour Court.
4. The dispute was referred to the conciliation service of the
Labour Court on the 12th September, 1989. A conciliation
conference was held on the 6th December, 1989. Agreement was not
reached and the parties referred the matter to the Labour Court
for investigation and recommendation. The Court investigated the
dispute on the 19th December, 1989.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
5. 1. The Clerical staff should not be treated less favourable
than the Distribution Operative Staff.
2. Both Staffs were offered voluntary terms. The Clerical
staff could not be offered distribution contracts because
these would be claimed by the Distribution Operatives. Their
claim is therefore for the monetary alternative.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
6. 1. The Company negotiated the two redundancy packages in
the context of the conditions existing in each section.
2. The Clerical staff need not have accepted the proposals,
while the Operatives employment would cease because the
Company were ceasing its distribution activities.
3. The ages of the Clerical staff ranged from 24 to 40
years. The Operatives ages ranged from 50 to 55 years. The
Clericals would therefore, be more likely to get alternative
employment.
4. The actual rate of pay of clerical staff was used in the
calculation of their payment. Basic rates were used in the
calculation of the Operatives payment.
RECOMMENDATION:
9. Having considered the submissions of the parties, the Court is
of the view that there is sufficient difference in the
circumstances of the two groups of workers to justify a different
redundancy package for each. Accordingly, the Court does not
recommend concession of the Union claim.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Heffernan
19th January, 1990 ----------------
M.N./U.S. Chairman