Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD90321 Case Number: LCR12918 Section / Act: S67 Parties: AMALGAMATED BOTTLING COMPANY - and - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL AND TECHNICAL UNION;AMALGAMATED TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION |
Dispute concerning the level of severance payments to workers employed in the transport fleet.
Recommendation:
8. Having considered the submissions from the parties the Court
recommends that the Company offer and the Unions accept the
following terms of redundancy for the workers concerned in this
claim.
(1) 3.50 weeks basic pay per year of service in addition to
statutory entitlements.
and
(2) A sum of #1,000 per claimant.
Division: Ms Owens Mr Keogh Mr Walsh
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD90321 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR12918
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 67
PARTIES: AMALGAMATED BOTTLING COMPANY
(REPRESENTED BY THE FEDERATION OF IRISH EMPLOYERS)
and
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL AND TECHNICAL UNION
AMALGAMATED TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Dispute concerning the level of severance payments to workers
employed in the transport fleet.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Company is engaged primarily in the the manufacture of
soft drinks and the wholesale distribution of stouts and beers to
the licensed and retail trade.
3. In January, 1990 the Company, along with Savage Smith, Dublin,
McCann's of Drogheda, Smiths of Trim, Corcorans of Carlow and Sean
Byrnes of Kilkenny merged in anto enlarged Group under the name of
United Beverages Limited. This would have the effect of providing
a Company capable of competing with the larger players in the
drinks market as well as enhancing the distribution systems of the
smaller bottling companies.
4. In May, 1990 the Company met with the Unions and informed them
that it was re-organising its transport fleet and that 14 workers
were to be made redundant with effect from 18th June, 1990 to 16th
July, 1990. The Company, offered redundancy terms of statutory
entitlement plus 2 weeks basic pay per year of service. This
offer was rejected by the workers. The Unions lodged a claim for
statutory entitlement; six weeks gross pay per year of service;
one thousand pounds lump sum per worker and employers rebate from
the Redundancy Fund divided among the workers. The claim was
rejected by the Company who offered to pay 3 weeks basic pay per
year of service plus statutory redundancy.
5. The matter was referred to the conciliation service of the
Labour Court on 25th May, 1990. A conciliation conference was
held on 5th June, 1990. At the conciliation conference the
Company amended its offer to provide for the payment of #1,000
lump sum in addition to its previous offer. This was rejected by
the Unions and as no agreement was reached the parties consented
to a referral to the Labour Court for investigation and
recommendation. A Court hearing was held on 15th June, 1990. The
Court issued its recommendation by letter on the same date.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
6. 1. The workers concerned have an average of 20 years service
in the Company and as most live in an area of high
unemployment they will probably never again obtain gainful
employment.
2. The redundancies are not brought about by loss of business
but re-organisation. The Company operates a fleet of seven
trucks. It now proposes to use two owner driver trucks and to
have the distribution area serviced by trucks belonging to
other companies within the Group. This will result in massive
savings for the Company as there will be no more capital
outlay on trucks in addition to savings on wages and
associated costs.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
7. 1. The Company has no other option, in the light of present
market difficulties (details supplied to the Court), but to
rationalise in order to ensure its survival. The decision to
make a number of jobs redundant in the sales and distribution
area was taken as a last resort after all other options had
been examined.
2. The Unions' claim is far in excess of the norm at present
for the food and drinks industry (details supplied to the
Court) and could not be entertained by the Company in its
present circumstances. A redundancy payment of the magnitude
claimed by the Union would put the future of the Company and
all other employees in serious jeopardy.
RECOMMENDATION:
8. Having considered the submissions from the parties the Court
recommends that the Company offer and the Unions accept the
following terms of redundancy for the workers concerned in this
claim.
(1) 3.50 weeks basic pay per year of service in addition to
statutory entitlements.
and
(2) A sum of #1,000 per claimant.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Evelyn Owens
__________________________
25th June, 1990. Deputy Chairman
M.D./J.C.