Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD91301 Case Number: LCR13342 Section / Act: S20(1) Parties: DUNNES STORES - and - IRISH DISTRIBUTIVE AND ADMINISTRATIVE TRADE UNION |
Dispute concerning severance settlements arising from the closure of the branch at Edward St., Newbridge, Co. Kildare.
Recommendation:
5. Having considered the submissions made by the Union and in
the absence of any information to the contrary from the Company
which did not attend the hearing, the Court recommends that all
employees of the closed store should be paid severance payment of
four weeks' pay per year of service in addition to whatever
Statutory Redundancy payments which have already been paid to the
minority of staff who qualified by reason of length of service.
In addition, the Court recommends in the event of any of the staff
who might wish to take up suitable alternative employment in the
Newbridge Shopping Centre store, they should be offered the next
such vacancy on the same terms and conditions as apply to newly
recruited staff.
Division: Mr O'Connell Mr Keogh Mr Walsh
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD91301 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR13342
THE LABOUR COURT
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 20(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT 1969
PARTIES: DUNNES STORES
AND
IRISH DISTRIBUTIVE AND ADMINISTRATIVE TRADE UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Dispute concerning severance settlements arising from the
closure of the branch at Edward St., Newbridge, Co. Kildare.
BACKGROUND:
2. In the weeks preceding the opening of a new branch of Dunnes
Stores in Newbridge Shopping Centre, full-time staff from the
Edward St. branch assisted in preparing the new premises for
opening and assisted in the training of new staff. Staff were
advised by the Company that if they wished to take up permanent
positions in the new store they would be required to complete new
application forms. The Union wrote to the Company on the 1st
April, 1987 seeking a meeting to discuss the implications of the
move to a new premises. The Union states that on the 6th April,
1987, the Company advised the workers concerned that they could
remain at the Edward St. branch indefinitely. It was the
Company's intention to retain both stores, but in the event of a
decision to close either one, the Company did not intend to
declare any worker redundant. The Edward St. branch continued
trading until the 8th April, 1991 when the Company closed the
branch. The Union claims that the Company closed the Edward St.
branch without notice and with the subsequent loss of employment
by 58 workers, both full- and part-time. Direct discussions
between the Union and the Company failed to secure agreement on a
severance settlement or on alternative employment at the new store
for some of the workforce. The Company's offer to pay statutory
entitlements to workers who qualified under the Redundancy Acts
(i.e., a minimum of two years' service) was rejected by the Union.
The Company was unwilling to attend a conciliation conference at
the Labour Relations Commission. The Union then referred the
dispute to the Labour Court on the 10th June, 1991 under Section
20(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969 and agreed to be bound
by the Court's recommendation. A Court hearing was held on the
26th June, 1991. The Company declined to attend the hearing.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Company was under the impression that the Union was
seeking a sizeable cash payment on behalf of workers
transferring from the Edward St. branch. This was incorrect.
Subsequently a senior member of Management advised the
workers concerned that they could remain at the Edward St.
branch. The workers there became convinced that they were
considered "the black sheep" in the Company's employment.
2. In the week of 31st December, 1987 the Company tried
unilaterally to change a condition of employment of some long
serving workers by requiring them to sign a document agreeing
to relinquish it (details supplied to the Court). The
Company was not prepared to attend conciliation or any other
third party on this issue. The workers refused to sign the
document and were suspended indefinitely. In the interests
of the jobs of their colleagues in Edward St. these workers
did not seek immediate industrial action but had their cases
referred to the Employment Appeals Tribunal (E.A.T.) as
constructive dismissals. They have since received favourable
decisions from the E.A.T., which decided that they should be
re-engaged.
3. On the 8th April, 1991 the Union received a telephone
call from the Company advising that the Edward St. branch was
being closed with immediate effect on the grounds that it was
no longer viable. At a subsequent meeting at which the Union
endeavoured to establish if the Company would reconsider its
decision to close the store, Management stated that any Union
proposals on the closure would have to include the withdrawal
of the claims before the E.A.T. The Union refused this
request. The Company's only offer on redundancy was to pay
statutory entitlements. On the 22nd April, 1991 the eligible
workers received their redundancy certificates and cheques
for statutory entitlements.
4. At a subsequent meeting on the 26th April the Company
offered to those workers entitled to statutory redundancy, a
"plus" payment equal to 3 times their statutory redundancy,
on condition that the cases before the E.A.T. be withdrawn.
The Union refused this offer. There was no offer in respect
of the 40 workers with less than two years' service. Further
meetings failed to get any further concessions from the
Company.
5. The Company's severance proposals fall short of the norm
negotiated with similar multiple stores where voluntary
redundancy settlements have yielded 4 and 4.50 weeks' pay per
year of service.
6. The Company closed its Edward St. branch without notice
contrary to the provisions of the 1977 Protection of
Employment Act. Twelve of the workers dismissed believed
that in the event of the store closing, they would be
transferred to the Company's other store - Newbridge Shopping
Centre. The Company maintains that there are no jobs there
for them. However, it has been reported to the Union that
new part-time staff have been engaged in the new store, but
none of those who worked in the Edward St. branch were
offered employment.
7. All the workers dismissed are under 41 years of age and
only 19 have statutory redundancy entitlements - the
remaining 39 have less than two years' service.
8. The Union is asking the Court to recommend that the
workers concerned who cannot be accommodated with suitable
alternative employment in the new store, should not be
treated less favourably than workers in other multiple stores
who have recently faced the loss of their jobs through
redundancy in less traumatic circumstances.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. Having considered the submissions made by the Union and in
the absence of any information to the contrary from the Company
which did not attend the hearing, the Court recommends that all
employees of the closed store should be paid severance payment of
four weeks' pay per year of service in addition to whatever
Statutory Redundancy payments which have already been paid to the
minority of staff who qualified by reason of length of service.
In addition, the Court recommends in the event of any of the staff
who might wish to take up suitable alternative employment in the
Newbridge Shopping Centre store, they should be offered the next
such vacancy on the same terms and conditions as apply to newly
recruited staff.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
John O'Connell
____________________
9th July, 1991
T.O'D. / M.O'C. Deputy Chairman