Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD91502 Case Number: LCR13407 Section / Act: S26(1) Parties: OMMITRON LIMITED - and - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION |
Claim by the Union for an improvement in redundancy terms.
Recommendation:
3. Having considered the written submissions and the oral
evidence presented by the parties the Court recommends as
follows:-
REDUNDANCY TERMS:
- 3 weeks payment per year of service and statutory
payment for service up to 5 years.
- 3½ weeks payment per year of service and statutory
payments for service between 5 years and 10 years.
- 4 weeks payment per year of service and statutory
payments for service over 10 years.
CHRISTMAS BONUS:
The Court does not consider as appropriate, the payment of a
Christmas bonus to staff not employed at the year end.
DIRECTOR:
The Court considers that the Company should make arrangements
necessary to permit the appointment of an employee-shareholder
nominee to the Board with effect from 1st January, 1993. The
right to such a representative should continue as long as
employees hold at least 30% of the issued ordinary shares.
PERMANENT EMPLOYEE PCQT DIVISION:
Having regard to the technical requirements of the jobs and the
qualifications and work history of the workers involved and having
considered the terms of the agreements on both redundancies and
lay-offs, the Court considers that the Company is entitled to
retain the workers in the KRYP division in preference to the
worker in the P.C.Q.T. The Court does not regard the Union
proposals of retaining the P.C.Q.T. worker for cover as
appropriate in the circumstances. The Court therefore recommends
that the Union accept the Company proposal as it is totally
dictated by work requirements.
Division: CHAIRMAN Mr Collins Mr Rorke
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD91502 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR13407
THE LABOUR COURT
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 26(1) INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990
PARTIES: OMMITRON LIMITED
(Represented by the Federation of Irish Employers)
and
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Claim by the Union for an improvement in redundancy terms.
BACKGROUND:
2. The claim was the subject of a conciliation conference held on
20th September, 1991. As no agreement was reached the issue was
referred to the Labour Court for investigation and recommendation
by the Labour Relations Commission under Section 26(1) of the
industrial Relations Act, 1990. The parties agreed to the
referral. A Labour Court hearing was held on 17th September,
1991.
RECOMMENDATION:
3. Having considered the written submissions and the oral
evidence presented by the parties the Court recommends as
follows:-
REDUNDANCY TERMS:
- 3 weeks payment per year of service and statutory
payment for service up to 5 years.
- 3½ weeks payment per year of service and statutory
payments for service between 5 years and 10 years.
- 4 weeks payment per year of service and statutory
payments for service over 10 years.
CHRISTMAS BONUS:
The Court does not consider as appropriate, the payment of a
Christmas bonus to staff not employed at the year end.
DIRECTOR:
The Court considers that the Company should make arrangements
necessary to permit the appointment of an employee-shareholder
nominee to the Board with effect from 1st January, 1993. The
right to such a representative should continue as long as
employees hold at least 30% of the issued ordinary shares.
PERMANENT EMPLOYEE PCQT DIVISION:
Having regard to the technical requirements of the jobs and the
qualifications and work history of the workers involved and having
considered the terms of the agreements on both redundancies and
lay-offs, the Court considers that the Company is entitled to
retain the workers in the KRYP division in preference to the
worker in the P.C.Q.T. The Court does not regard the Union
proposals of retaining the P.C.Q.T. worker for cover as
appropriate in the circumstances. The Court therefore recommends
that the Union accept the Company proposal as it is totally
dictated by work requirements.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Heffernan
19th September, 1991 ----------------
M.D./U.S. Chairman