Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD90233 Case Number: LCR12959 Section / Act: S67 Parties: LONGFORD TEXTILES - and - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION |
Claim by the Union concerning redundancy compensation for one worker.
Recommendation:
5. Having considered the submissions from the parties the Court
is of the view that in all the circumstances of this case the
Company should offer and the Union accept a sum of #3,000 plus
statutory entitlement in full settlement of the redundancy claim.
Division: Ms Owens Mr Collins Mr Devine
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD90233 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR12959
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 67
PARTIES: LONGFORD TEXTILES
(REPRESENTED BY THE FEDERATION OF IRISH EMPLOYERS)
AND
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Claim by the Union concerning redundancy compensation for one
worker.
BACKGROUND:
2. 1. The Company was established in 1972. Currently it employs
108 workers on a three cycle shift. It was part of the Hanson
Trust PLC group of companies until February 1989, when,
following a management buyout it became part of the Barbour
Campbell group of companies. The Company now operates as an
independent entity.
2. The worker concerned with the dispute was employed as a
trainee accountant/accounts technician in 1982. His work
involved the preparation of accounts for the Longford plant.
The accounts were then finalised in the group's head office.
Following management's buyout of the Company in 1989 and its
consequential operating as an independent entity, the Company
was obliged to operate its own accounts system. It decided to
employ an accounts person with accountancy qualifications and
as the duties incorporated many of those previously performed
by the worker concerned he was made redundant. His rate of
pay was #165 per week. By way of redundancy compensation he
was offered #1,500 approximately i.e. statutory entitlement x
2. The offer was rejected by the Union who sought agreement
on the referral of the dispute to a Rights Commissioner.
Initially the Company agreed but subsequently decided against
a Rights Commissioner's investigation. The dispute was
referred to the Conciliation Service of the Labour Court on
20th March, 1990. It was the subject of a conciliation
conference on 23rd April, 1990. As no agreement was reached
the Union requested a full Court hearing. The Company agreed
and the Court investigated the dispute on 18th July, 1990.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The particular case of redundancy is unusual in that it
arises directly from a decision to prepare and finalise
Company accounts on site where a qualified accounts person is
required. There is also plans to fully computerise the
accounts system, the result being that there is not sufficient
duties within the Company for the worker and the new accounts
person. In the circumstances the worker must receive
reasonable compensation for his loss of office. The Union is
seeking redundancy compensation of 4 weeks pay per year of
service i.e. approximately #5,000. The four weeks formula is
reasonable and modest. Accordingly, the Court is asked to
recommend that the worker be compensated with a severance
package of 4 weeks pay per year of service, on his salary of
#165 per week, for 7.5 years of service.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Company believe that it would not have been necessary
to make the worker redundant had he pursued accountancy
courses which were funded by the Company on his behalf. The
redundancy compensation offered to the worker is substantially
greater than that given in previous redundancy situations.
Company precedents for redundancy compensation is #100 per
year of service, in addition to statutory. The offer of
#1,500 is fair and reasonable. In the circumstances and in
view of the trading difficulties being experienced by the
Company, the Court is asked to recommend that the Union accept
a sum of #1,500 in full and final settlement of their claim.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. Having considered the submissions from the parties the Court
is of the view that in all the circumstances of this case the
Company should offer and the Union accept a sum of #3,000 plus
statutory entitlement in full settlement of the redundancy claim.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court,
Evelyn Owens
___23rd___July,____1990. ___________________
A. McG. / M. F. Deputy Chairman