Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD91629 Case Number: LCR13516 Section / Act: S26(1) Parties: PUMP SERVICES - and - NATIONAL ENGINEERING AND ELECTRICAL TRADE UNION |
Dispute concerning redundancy terms for 3 workers.
Recommendation:
5. The Court has considered the detailed submissions from the
parties. The Court was also given details of correspondence
between the parties prior to the dispute and at the hearing the
Company submitted on a confidential basis a summary of their
financial position.
Taking all aspects of the dispute into account the Court
recommends
(a) The Union accept the 3 redundancies.
(b) The Company pay the net effective re-instatement from 1st
November to 29th November, 1991.
(c) The terms of redundancy compensation be calculated at 2
weeks per year of service plus statutory entitlement.
(d) In addition to payments as at (c) above the Company pay a
sum of £100 per year of Service. This additional sum to be
paid immediately the Company receive their statutory refund
from the Department of Labour. The Court is recommending
this delayed payment in recognition of the Company's
trading position.
(e) In the event of future redundancies both parties agree to
negotiate a package based on the then financial position of
the Company.
(f) On acceptance by the Company of the above the Union agree
to call off the industrial action.
(g) The Company give the 3 employees satisfactory references.
(h) No victimisation of any worker involved in the dispute
should take place. In the event of any dispute in this
regard the parties agree to refer the dispute to a Rights
Commissioner.
The Court is concerned at the manner in which this dispute came
to a head and is concerned for the future of industrial
relations in the Company. The Court urges the parties to meet
in the near future with the objective of agreeing suitable
procedures for dealing with industrial relations problems which
may arise in the future.
Division: Ms Owens Mr Keogh Mr Rorke
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD91629 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR13516
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990
PARTIES: PUMP SERVICES
(Represented by the Federation of Irish Employers)
and
NATIONAL ENGINEERING AND ELECTRICAL TRADE UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Dispute concerning redundancy terms for 3 workers.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Company is engaged in the supply and maintenance of
petrol station forecourt equipment. In April, 1990 the Company
was purchased in a management buy-out. Following a review of
operations the Company decided to implement 6 redundancies,
including 3 redundancies in the workshop area, with effect from
1st November, 1991. The Company is offering a redundancy
package of statutory entitlement, minimum notice entitlement,
and an ex-gratia payment calculated at 1 week's pay per year of
service. The Union is claiming effective re-instatement prior
to the redundancy of the 3 workers concerned, an ex-gratia
payment calculated at 5 week's pay per year of service, a good
reference for those made redundant, and no victimisation of any
workers involved in the dispute. No agreement was reached at
local level discussions and an official strike, confined to
workshop personnel, commenced on 11th November, 1991. On 17th
November, 1991 the service engineers joined the strike and
withdrew labour from 20th November, 1991. The Labour Relations
Commission invited both parties to attend a conciliation
conference which was held on 25th November, 1991. Agreement was
not reached at the conciliation conference and the Commission
referred the dispute to the Labour Court on 26th November, 1991
in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations
Act, 1990. The Court investigated the dispute on 29th November,
1991 and issued a recommendation by letter on that date. At the
hearing the Company submitted details of its financial position
to the Court, on a confidential basis.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Company acted in an outrageous fashion by
dismissing the workers concerned on 1st November, 1991
without any opportunity for negotiations to take place.
The manner and methods which the Company adopted are
unacceptable and are not normal industrial relations
procedures.
3. 2. The workers concerned should be re-instated and an
acceptable level of redundancy payments made. The Union
has previously negotiated redundancy terms of 3 weeks per
year of service plus minimum entitlements.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. Following a review of operations the Company entered
into a rationalisation programme in order to reduce costs
in line with a reduction in income. Having regard to the
financial and commercial constraints within which the
Company must now operate the redundancy terms on offer are
reasonable and should be accepted.
4. 2. The workers concerned were offered their statutory
entitlement, minimum notice entitlement, and an ex-gratia
payment calculated at one week's pay per year of service.
Any increase in the redundancy terms will seriously affect
the future viability of the Company.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. The Court has considered the detailed submissions from the
parties. The Court was also given details of correspondence
between the parties prior to the dispute and at the hearing the
Company submitted on a confidential basis a summary of their
financial position.
Taking all aspects of the dispute into account the Court
recommends
(a) The Union accept the 3 redundancies.
(b) The Company pay the net effective re-instatement from 1st
November to 29th November, 1991.
(c) The terms of redundancy compensation be calculated at 2
weeks per year of service plus statutory entitlement.
(d) In addition to payments as at (c) above the Company pay a
sum of £100 per year of Service. This additional sum to be
paid immediately the Company receive their statutory refund
from the Department of Labour. The Court is recommending
this delayed payment in recognition of the Company's
trading position.
(e) In the event of future redundancies both parties agree to
negotiate a package based on the then financial position of
the Company.
(f) On acceptance by the Company of the above the Union agree
to call off the industrial action.
(g) The Company give the 3 employees satisfactory references.
(h) No victimisation of any worker involved in the dispute
should take place. In the event of any dispute in this
regard the parties agree to refer the dispute to a Rights
Commissioner.
The Court is concerned at the manner in which this dispute came
to a head and is concerned for the future of industrial
relations in the Company. The Court urges the parties to meet
in the near future with the objective of agreeing suitable
procedures for dealing with industrial relations problems which
may arise in the future.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Evelyn Owens
----------------------
13th January, 1992
A.S./N.Ni.M. Deputy Chairman