Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD91331 Case Number: LCR13399 Section / Act: S26(1) Parties: C.E. MCAULEY AND COMPANY LIMITED - and - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION |
Dispute concerning redundancy payments for 3 workers.
Recommendation:
5. The Court has considered in detail the submissions both
written and verbal made in this case. The Court has taken
particular note of the commitment to the needs of their employees
by the directors of the Company and is satisfied that the offer
made at conciliation of twice statutory entitlements is fair and
reasonable, requiring as it does a further injection of personal
funds by the directors to enable it be implemented.
The Court therefore recommends that the offer be accepted.
Division: MrMcGrath Mr McHenry Mr Devine
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD91331 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR13399
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990
PARTIES: C.E. MCAULEY AND COMPANY LIMITED
and
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Dispute concerning redundancy payments for 3 workers.
BACKGROUND:
2. 1. The Company has decided to cease the operation of it's
wool sorting facility which resulted in 3 workers being
declared redundant. The Company offered statutory
entitlements to the workers. The Union on behalf of the
workers sought enhanced redundancy payments. The workers were
made redundant by the Company in 1979 and at that time
received statutory entitlements.
2. The claim was referred to the Labour Relations Commission
on 16th May, 1991 and a conciliation conference was held on
10th June, 1991. The Union claimed that despite the present
financial difficulties, the Company's considerable financial
assets (being sold) could meet its claim for enhanced
redundancy payments for the workers. The Company improved its
offer to twice the statutory entitlements but this was not
accepted by the Union. The dispute was referred to the Labour
Court on 28th June, 1991 and a Labour Court investigation took
place on 11th July, 1991.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The workers have considerable service in total with the
Company (31, 26, and 16 years). They will be unable to secure
alternative employment because of their ages. In these
circumstances it is appropriate that an enhanced redundancy
settlement be paid.
2. The workers were made redundant in 1979 and at that time
received only statutory entitlements under the provisions of
the 1967 Redundancy Payments Act. The workers were
immediately re-employed and have since then accrued 12 years
service reckonable for redundancy benefits. The workers
should now receive comparable redundancy terms with those paid
in industry generally. The sale of the Company's property
should provide sufficient funds to pay the revised claim of 5
weeks' pay per year of service plus statutory entitlements
under the Redundancy Payments Act, including the service pay
element (details supplied).
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. In March, 1979, the Company was advised that it should
liquidate. Redundancy packages for the 3 staff were agreed
with the Union representative of the time. Subsequently an
injection of personal funds (£60,000) permitted the firm to
continue in operation. Neither the directors (50%
shareholding) nor the other shareholders have at any time,
received a dividend from the Company. As a result of the
Company's financial position, the directors have received a
salary of only £7,000 over the past number of years.
2. The enhanced redundancy payments offered at conciliation
will be paid by the directors out of personal funds. There
will be no excess after the sale of the site (details
supplied).
RECOMMENDATION:
5. The Court has considered in detail the submissions both
written and verbal made in this case. The Court has taken
particular note of the commitment to the needs of their employees
by the directors of the Company and is satisfied that the offer
made at conciliation of twice statutory entitlements is fair and
reasonable, requiring as it does a further injection of personal
funds by the directors to enable it be implemented.
The Court therefore recommends that the offer be accepted.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Tom McGrath
_________________________
6th September, 1991. Deputy Chairman
J.F./J.C.