Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD91446 Case Number: LCR13419 Section / Act: S26(1) Parties: LISTER TUBES LIMITED - and - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION |
Claim by the Union for an enhanced redundancy payment for one worker.
Recommendation:
5. The Court has considered the submissions made by the parties
and recommends that the Employer's offer be amended to provide for
a sum of £6,500 and that this amount be accepted by the worker
concerned in full and final settlement of her claim.
Division: Mr O'Connell Mr Brennan Mr Devine
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD91446 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR13419
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990
PARTIES: LISTER TUBES LIMITED
(REPRESENTED BY THE FEDERATION OF IRISH EMPLOYERS)
and
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Claim by the Union for an enhanced redundancy payment for one
worker.
BACKGROUND:
2. THe worker concerned was employed by the Company as a
permanent part-time employee since October, 1978. Her duties
involved office cleaning and assisting another worker in the
running of the canteen. She worked approximately a 30-hours week
and her wage was £132 p.w. In 1990 the Company announced its
intention to sub-contract the cleaning operation to outside
contractors. The Company offered redundancy settlements to the
worker concerned with the dispute and to the worker in the canteen
amounting to statutory entitlements plus ex-gratia payments.
Following local discussions the Company increased its offer to
both workers. The canteen worker accepted the redundancy package.
The offer to the worker concerned with the dispute, amounting to
£5,750 (approximately 3.4 weeks pay per year of service, including
statutory entitlements), was rejected by the Union which is
claiming five weeks pay per year of service plus statutory
entitlements. The Company rejected the Union's claim. The issue
was referred to the Conciliation Service of the Labour Relations
Commission on the 26th February, 1991. A conciliation conference
was held on the 28th March, 1991 but no agreement was reached.
The dispute was referred to the Labour Court by the Labour
Relations Commission on the 20th August, 1991. The Court
investigated the dispute on the 6th September, 1991.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Union does not want the cleaning operation contracted
out. It is anxious to retain the job of the worker concerned.
However Management's decision is final and the Union has
served a claim on the Company on behalf of the worker for a
redundancy payment of five weeks' pay for each year of service
plus statutory entitlements. The claim is reasonable in view
of the worker's service. She has not lost her job due to a
shortage of work but simply because of a Company decision to
employ an outside contractor.
2. The worker concerned is the major supporter of her family
due to her husband's ill-health. She has found it very
difficult to maintain living standards over the past number of
months since being made redundant. The compensation which the
Union is claiming will help to alleviate the worker's very
difficult financial situation.
3. The Company's state that the worker was offered a
part-time employment at reduced hours. The Union would like
to point out that the worker had one informal conversation
with Management and was never given the option to accept or
reject any part-time job with the Company.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The redundancy which arose in relation to the worker's
position was genuine and cannot be challenged. The Company
has no legal obligations other than to comply with the
appropriate legislation and pay the worker her statutory
entitlements. However, the Company has acknowledged the
worker's loyal service and made her a generous ex-gratia
offer. The Company also explored alternative employment
options and offered the worker part-time employment at reduced
hours or the possibility of employment with the contract
cleaners. The worker rejected all offers.
2. The Company has stated clearly to the Union that the offer
to the worker concerned was made on the basis of the
performance of the Company at that time. Since then the
Company's financial situation has declined due to the market
recession. At present the Compnay's financial situation will
not allow it to consider repeating or even enhancing the
original offer.
3. A number of other workers have been made redundant and
have accepted the Company's redundancy package. Any
enhancement of the workers redundancy package could give rise
to consequential claims which the Company, due to its poor
performance, cannot afford to consider or to concede.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. The Court has considered the submissions made by the parties
and recommends that the Employer's offer be amended to provide for
a sum of £6,500 and that this amount be accepted by the worker
concerned in full and final settlement of her claim.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
John O'Connell
__________________________
30th September, 1991. Deputy Chairman
T.O'D./J.C.