Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD91568 Case Number: LCR13495 Section / Act: S26(1) Parties: PATRICK CHARLTON LIMITED - and - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION |
Claim by the Union for enhanced redundancy compensation.
Recommendation:
5. The Court having taken into account all of the issues raised
by the parties recommends that the employees concerned in this
claim should be paid 2 weeks per year of service in addition to
their statutory entitlements under the Redundancy Acts.
Division: Mr O'Connell Mr Brennan Ms Ni Mhurchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD91568 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR13495
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1990
PARTIES: PATRICK CHARLTON LIMITED
(REPRESENTED BY THE FEDERATION OF IRISH EMPLOYERS)
and
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Claim by the Union for enhanced redundancy compensation.
BACKGROUND:
2. The claim concerns 13 workers who were employed by the
Company, which operated a large wholesale business in Kiltimagh,
Co. Mayo. In August, 1991 the Company went into voluntary
liquidation. The workers were paid their statutory entitlements.
Subsequently the Union submitted a claim for increased redundancy
payments on behalf of the workers concerned. The Liquidator
rejected the Union's claim on the grounds that there were no funds
available to make increased payments. The issue was referred to
the Labour Relations Commission on the 8th September, 1991. A
conciliation conference was held on the 18th September, 1991 but
no agreement was reached. The issue was referred to the Labour
Court by the Labour Relations Commission on the 29th October,
1991. The Court investigated the dispute on the 20th November,
1991.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. When the workers concerned first joined the Union in
September, 1990 they asked the Union official not to contact
the Company or make claims in relation to any issues. The
workers took this action because the Company had previously
advised staff that if they joined a Union Management would
close the plant. In April, 1991 the Company issued the
workers concerned with notice of redundancy and following a
request from the Union to seek a meeting to discuss enhanced
redundancy payments the Company, without warning, withdrew the
notice of redundancy and continued trading as heretofore.
Subsequently, despite numerous requests from the Union for a
meeting with the Company, no meetings took place.
2. The Company ceased trading at the end of August, yet the
next day, trade continued at the premises and the Union was
advised that this was a new Company. None of the workers
concerned was re-employed in the new Company. They have given
long and dedicated service to the Company but have been
treated in a shabby fashion. The Company is anti-union and
this is borne out by the fact that two non union workers were
employed in the new operation.
3. The Union, on behalf of the workers concerned claims that
the workers should be re-employed in the new operation, but
failing this they should receive enhanced redundancy payments.
Comparable employments in the area pay ex-gratia lump sums in
the region of three weeks pay per year of service, plus
statutory entitlements. The Union feels that a settlement of
this nature would be fair and reasonable in the circumstances.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. When the Union wrote to the Company early in 1991 seeking
a meeting to discuss negotiating rights the Managing Director
was unable to attend a meeting because of poor health. The
Company was not anti union. Subsequently, as a result of
severe financial difficulties (details supplied to the Court)
it was decided to place the Company in liquidation and a
liquidator was appointed in accordance with the Companies Act,
1963 to 1986. The workers concerned were paid their statutory
entitlements. The Liquidator has advised the Union that no
further monies are available to make ex-gratia payments to the
workers. Some of the Company's outstanding debts will not be
recovered and accordingly there is a shortfall in funds.
2. With regard to the present operation on the Company
premises some former employees are operating agencies on a
franchise basis (these are given out by suppliers). They have
purchased some stock and equipment from the Liquidator. These
Companies are totally separate and are in no way connected
with Patrick Charlton Limited (in liquidation).
RECOMMENDATION:
5. The Court having taken into account all of the issues raised
by the parties recommends that the employees concerned in this
claim should be paid 2 weeks per year of service in addition to
their statutory entitlements under the Redundancy Acts.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Tom McGrath
____________________
18th December, 1991. Deputy Chairman
T.O'D./J.C.