Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD91384 Case Number: LCR13409 Section / Act: S20(1) Parties: MESSERS J. HOLLAND (HOISERY) LIMITED - and - IRISH DISTRIBUTIVE AND ADMINISTRATIVE TRADE UNION |
Claim by the Union concerning level of redundancy payments.
Recommendation:
4. Having considered the submissions made by the Union and in the
absence of any submission from the Employer who did not attend the
hearing, the Court recommends that each employee made redundant
should be paid two weeks' pay per year of service in addition to
any statutory entitlements due.
Division: Mr O'Connell Mr McHenry Mr Devine
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD91384 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR13409
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 20(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT 1969
PARTIES: MESSERS J. HOLLAND (HOISERY) LIMITED
TRADING AS DAMART
and
IRISH DISTRIBUTIVE AND ADMINISTRATIVE TRADE UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Claim by the Union concerning level of redundancy payments.
BACKGROUND:
2. In January, 1991, the Company had three retail outlets in
Dublin and one in Cork. In February, 1991 the Company closed one
outlet in Dublin. Although the majority of the staff joined
I.D.A.T.U. in February, 1991, the Company refused to recognise the
Union. Following an inspection by the Department of Labour, the
Company's rates of pay were found to be in breach of the
Registered Employment Agreement for the Dublin and Dun Laoghaire
Drapery, Footwear and Allied Trades. Subsequent to the Department
of Labours' inspection, the Company indicated to the staff that
they would amend pay rates and pay arrears of pay in due course.
On 1st July, 1991, the staff were informed that the three
remaining outlets were closing with immediate effect. Employees
who qualified for redundancy payments would be paid statutory
entitlements. Attempts by the Union to meet with the Company to
discuss redundancy payments were refused. The Union referred the
matter to the Labour Court on 23rd July, 1991, under Section 20(1)
of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969. A Labour Court hearing
took place on 4th September, 1991. In correspondence to the
Court, the Company indicated that they would not be represented at
the hearing. Prior to the Court's investigation the Union agreed
to be bound by the Court's recommendation.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. Payments of statutory redundancy entitlements only is out
of line with the normal redundancy payment which is made to
redundant workers in the distributive trades. Payments of six
times their statutory entitlements were made recently. At the
very least the payment should be based on a recent Labour
Court recommendation which deals with forced redundancies in
which the Court recommended four weeks' pay per year of
service and statutory entitlements (L.C.R. 13342 refers).
RECOMMENDATION:
4. Having considered the submissions made by the Union and in the
absence of any submission from the Employer who did not attend the
hearing, the Court recommends that each employee made redundant
should be paid two weeks' pay per year of service in addition to
any statutory entitlements due.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
John O'Connell
________________________
30th September, 1991. Deputy Chairman
F.B./J.C.