Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD90426 Case Number: LCR13002 Section / Act: S67 Parties: C.P. SECURITY LIMITED - and - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION |
Dispute concerning redundancy compensation for two workers.
Recommendation:
7. Having considered the submissions made, in the circumstances
as described the Court is of the opinion that neither worker
qualifies for a severance payment and the Court therefore does not
recommend concession of the Union's claim.
Division: Mr O'Connell Mr Keogh Mr Devine
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD90426 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR13002
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 67
PARTIES: C.P. SECURITY LIMITED
(REPRESENTED BY THE FEDERATION OF IRISH EMPLOYERS)
and
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Dispute concerning redundancy compensation for two workers.
BACKGROUND:
2. In 1985 the motorphone section employed five people but due to
increased competition and the subsequent diminishing number of
customers the staff employed in the section had been reduced to
two people in 1990.
3. In late 1989 the Company approached the two workers concerned
and informed them of its decision to wind down the motorphone
operation and offered to redeploy them to the Control Room. The
workers refused the offer of redeployment as it would involve
night and week-end work. The Company informed the workers that
the only alternative to re-deployment was the offer of a statutory
redundancy lump sum payment. The Union claimed compensation in
excess of the statutory lump sum. The claim was rejected by the
Company and the matter was referred to the conciliation service of
the Labour Court on 6th April, 1990. A conciliation conference
was held on 6th July, 1990. 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
22nd August, 1990.
4. Subsequent to the conciliation conference one of the workers
left the Company after she secured alternative employment. The
other worker was offered a position in the Control Room which did
not involve night or week-end working. The worker declined this
offer.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
5. 1. The workers concerned have long satisfactory service (8
and 5 years respectively) with the Company. Neither the
workers nor the Company were pleased with the redundancy
option. Indeed the Company expressed its regret at the
prospect of losing two excellent members of staff. Because of
the very high standard which the workers have provided, both
to management and customers, it is not unreasonable that they
be paid compensation in excess of the statutory redundancy
lump sum.
2. The proposed changes by the Company involving the workers
moving from day work to a 3 shift cycle, involving night and
week-end work were so dramatic a change that the workers
concerned could not possibly accept them.
3. The Company's offer of day work has come too late. One of
the workers has already secured alternative employment and the
other one is in the process of doing same. However this does
not absolve the Company from its responsibilities. They had
over six months to come up with this offer. For that period
the workers concerned were living under the uncertainty of
their employment position in the Company and it is to their
credit that they went about securing alternative employment.
They should not be penalised for this as the Company had more
than ample time to make its revised offer.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
6. 1. In all previous redundancy situations within the Company
the statutory amount has been paid only. The Company would be
very reluctant to lose the services of the two workers
concerned because of their satisfactory service and knowledge
of the equipment which the Company uses.
2. The Company has made every effort to facilitate the
workers concerned and it is for this reason that no time limit
was put on the proposed transfer to the Control Room.
3. One of the workers has since left and it is the Company's
view no redundancy is payable as she left of her own volition.
In the case of the remaining worker the Company has offered
what she requested i.e. a day job which if it is not
acceptable then payment of a statutory redundancy lump sum in
line with previous redundancy settlements.
RECOMMENDATION:
7. Having considered the submissions made, in the circumstances
as described the Court is of the opinion that neither worker
qualifies for a severance payment and the Court therefore does not
recommend concession of the Union's claim.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
John O'Connell
________________________
3rd September, 1990. Deputy Chairman
M.D./J.C.