Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD91110 Case Number: LCR13335 Section / Act: S67 Parties: RENT AN IRISH COTTAGE PLC - and - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION |
Dispute concerning (1) retrospective pay to supervisors and (2) the payment of a redundancy lump sum to a clerical worker.
Recommendation:
Supervisors' back money
5. Having considered the unusual background to this claim which
dates from 1985 and the present circumstances of the Company, the
Court recommends a salary increase of 10% be paid to the claimants
with effect from 1st May, 1991.
Clerical Worker - Redundancy lump sum
Having considered the basis advanced for this claim, the Court
does not consider that the conditions laid down by the Rights
Commissioner for an additional payment have been met.
Accordingly, the Court does not recommend concession of the claim.
Division: CHAIRMAN Mr Collins Ms Ni Mhurchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD91110 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR13335
THE LABOUR COURT
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 67 INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1946
PARTIES: RENT AN IRISH COTTAGE PLC
(Represented by the Federation of Irish Employers)
and
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Dispute concerning (1) retrospective pay to supervisors and
(2) the payment of a redundancy lump sum to a clerical worker.
BACKGROUND:
2. 1. The Company has 67 cottages for tourist rental in 8
locations in the Mid-West Region. It employs 13 staff of which 8
Cottage Supervisors and 1 redundant worker are involved in the
claim. There are 2 issues in dispute.
(a) Supervisors' back money:
2. There are eight supervisors involved in this claim.
Outstanding wage increases for the years 1985 to 1987 are being
sought. The workers agreed to forego these wage increases because
of the difficult financial situation of the Company at that time.
(b) Redundancy lump sum payment to a clerical worker:
3. The claim relates to an increased payment for a worker who was
made redundant in December, 1983. The Company paid statutory
entitlements plus #800 to the worker. In a claim for an increased
payment the dispute was brought before a Rights Commissioner. The
following Recommendation (CM14,377) was issued on 1st December
1983.
"RECOMMENDATION
It would be irresponsible of me to recommend
compensation against an empty purse so I recommend that
the Union and the worker accept the offer subject to one
condition.
That is, the Union would be at liberty to raise the
claim again if the Company's financial position improves
or if the major shareholders show a willingness to make
a contribution to his severance payment".
(The worker was named in the Rights Commissioner's
Recommendation.)
In view of the Company's improved financial situation in recent
years, the Union re-activated the claim.
4. The claims were referred to the Conciliation Service of the
Labour Court on 22nd February, 1990. Conciliation conferences were
held on 11th April, 1990 and 9th November, 1990. Both sides
requested a referral to the Labour Court for investigation and
recommendation. The Labour Court investigation took place on 6th
June, 1991.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
(a) Supervisors' back money:
3. 1. The Company informed the workers in 1983 of a difficult
trading and financial situation. The workers responded by
accepting a considerable reduction in earnings by foregoing
wage round increases in the succeeding years and some
outstanding holiday entitlements. The Union is claiming a 12%
increase and some nominal retrospection for the years, 1985 to
1987 (prior to the the implementation of the Programme for
National Recovery). There is more than 12% outstanding
(details supplied).
2. In foregoing wage round increases, the workers were
under the impression that all workers had made the same
sacrifices. It transpires however, that the other workers
received all wage round increases as they fell due. In the
light of this information and the Company's improved financial
position the workers put in a claim for the outstanding
amounts due. The claim is for the years 1985 to 1987 and
entitlements for previous years are not being pursued.
(b) Redundancy lump sum payment to a Clerical Worker:
3. The worker was employed in a clerical capacity from 1977
until he was made redundant in 1983. Part of his work
involved the compilation of financial accounts which was
computerised in 1983. The worker was subsequently made
redundant. The redundancy settlement offered by the Company
was inadequate and the Union put the case on the workers
behalf before a Rights Commissioner for recommendation. An
increased settlement was not recommended at the time but the
Recommendation clearly indicated that the case could be
pursued when the financial position of the Company improved.
4. The worker was paid #800 above statutory in 1983. Since
then the Company has become profitable. The Company has put
out to tender for the sale of its equity and this may be the
last opportunity for the worker to be paid a realistic
redundancy settlement. A worker who was dismissed in 1983
received approximately 1 year's salary for redundancy payment.
The worker is seeking the difference between what he has
already received and his annual salary at the time he was made
redundant.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
(a) Supervisors' back money:
4. 1. Severe financial difficulties facing the Company in the
mid 1980's did not allow for an increase in supervisors'
wages. It was conceded at conciliation in early 1990 that
increases arising under the Programme for National Recovery
(PNR) would be applied and backdated as appropriate. The
Company's financial position does not allow for the concession
of further increases (details supplied). Although the
Company's financial position has improved marginally, the
improvement is not sufficient to pay increases backdated to
the period requested.
(b) Redundancy lump sum payment to a clerical worker:
2. The Rights Commissioner's findings in this case were sensitive
to the Company's financial position. Company finances have
remained precarious throughout the 1980s and recent
improvements have been marginal. The Board did consider the
matter further at the end of 1990 and decided that no further
payment was justified.
RECOMMENDATION:
Supervisors' back money
5. Having considered the unusual background to this claim which
dates from 1985 and the present circumstances of the Company, the
Court recommends a salary increase of 10% be paid to the claimants
with effect from 1st May, 1991.
Clerical Worker - Redundancy lump sum
Having considered the basis advanced for this claim, the Court
does not consider that the conditions laid down by the Rights
Commissioner for an additional payment have been met.
Accordingly, the Court does not recommend concession of the claim.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Heffernan
28th June, 1991 ----------------
J.F./U.S. Chairman