Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD91296 Case Number: LCR13367 Section / Act: S26(1) Parties: F.E.I. LIMITED - and - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION |
Claim by the Union for the payment of enhanced redundancy terms or alternatively, that the Company declare a date for resumption of work.
Recommendation:
9. Having considered the submissions from the parties and noting
the financial position of the Company, the Court recommends that
the offer contained in letter dated 29th January, 1991 be
re-instated and that the Union accept this offer.
Division: Ms Owens Mr Keogh Mr Rorke
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD91296 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR13367
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990
PARTIES: F.E.I. LIMITED
(REPRESENTED BY THE FEDERATION OR IRISH EMPLOYERS)
and
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Claim by the Union for the payment of enhanced redundancy
terms or alternatively, that the Company declare a date for
resumption of work.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Company, which is located in Bagnalstown, Co. Carlow,
manufactures panellised wall systems for high rise buildings. Its
markets are mainly in the U.K. and the United States.
3. The Company completed its last contract in February, 1991. It
has been unable to secure any further contracts due to the
continuing recession in the building industry in the U.K. and the
U.S. The workforce has been on lay-off since then.
4. In January, 1991 the Company met with the Union and advised
them of the situation and that it had no work for its employees.
The Company put the following offer to the Union by letter dated
29th January, 1991:-
1. Statutory Entitlement on day of Lay-Off: Employees who
avail of this entitlement will have no right of call
back.
2. If employees have been laid off for a period of 3 months,
then those employees may apply for a redundancy package
which is a week's pay per year of service. Those
employees who avail of this package may be called back
should work become available at the Company, at their
discretion.
3. There is no upper limit on earnings, i.e. the #250
statutory limit will not apply.
4. If an employee is over 41, that employee will receive (1)
a bonus week and (2) #100 per year of service over the
age of 41.
The offer was rejected by the Union. The matter was referred to
the Labour Relations Commission. A conciliation conference was
held on 26th February, 1991. It was agreed that the situation
would be reviewed on 1st April, 1991 and 1st May, 1991 and that in
the event of there being no concrete date for resumption of work
negotiations on a redundancy package would take place.
5. The Company subsequently advised the Union that, due to a
cashflow problem, it was withdrawing its offer of 29th January,
1991 and that if the workers wished to claim redundancy they would
have to apply for payment from the Redundancy Fund. The Company
also stated that it was not in a position to give a date for a
resumption of work. The Union claimed redundancy payment at the
rate of five (5) weeks' pay per year of service.
6. As no agreement was possible the Labour Relations Commission
referred the dispute to the Labour Court for investigation and
recommendation under Section 26 of the Industrial Relations Act,
1990. The parties agreed to the referral. A Court hearing was
held on 11th July, 1991.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
7. 1. It is important for the workers that they should know when
they will resume work. Many would like to return to work as
they find it very difficult to exist on Social Welfare
benefits while they are on lay-off. A re-call date is very
important to them.
2. In the absence of a date of re-call, the workers are
entitled, by law, to claim redundancy. The terms offered are
not acceptable. The workers are seeking the payment of five
week's pay per year of service. This is in line with
settlements in other companies (details supplied to the
Court). The Company has withdrawn its original offer.
Workers wishing to claim redundancy will have to claim it
from the Redundancy Fund. The Union does not accept this
position. It was given assurances in January, 1991 that the
Company was financially sound.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS;
8. 1. It is the Company's intention to resume production at
Bagnalstown, as soon as it receives orders. Due to the
continuing recession in the building industry in the U.K. and
the U.S. the Company is not in a position to give a re-call
date.
2. Circumstances have changed since the Company made its
offer of 29th January, 1991. Whilst the manufacturing part of
the contract was completed, it was envisaged that the site
work would last until September, 1991. This would have
provided a sufficient cash flow to accommodate requests for
redundancy payments. The site work had to be terminated due
to non-payment for approved work by the main contractor. In
the absence of this cash flow, the Company is not in a
position to pay redundancy lump sums to any of its employees.
RECOMMENDATION:
9. Having considered the submissions from the parties and noting
the financial position of the Company, the Court recommends that
the offer contained in letter dated 29th January, 1991 be
re-instated and that the Union accept this offer.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Evelyn Owens
______________________
29th July, 1991 Deputy Chairman.
M.D./J.C.