Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD92385 Case Number: LCR13717 Section / Act: S26(1) Parties: ADELPHI/CARLTON LIMITED - and - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION |
Dispute concerning redundancy payments and the terms and conditions of employment for the remaining employees.
Recommendation:
7. The Court has considered the submissions made by the parties
and recommends as follows.
Redundancy payments
Having regard to terms agreed in the past and particularly having
regard to the circumstances in which the Company is seeking
redundancies at present, the Court considers that the terms
emanating from the conciliation conference are the best available
and should be accepted by the Union.
Rates for remaining staff
The Court recommends that the rates should be reviewed within the
context of Clause 3 of P.E.S.P.. However it does seem to the
Court that the concessions required of staff may in effect exceed
in value the 3% as available. Again having regard to the present
trading difficulties the Court recommends that the staff accept
the application of the P.E.S.P. limitations subject to notice of
their intention to process the claim further when the future of
the employment is more settled. The terms of this recommendation
may be used to support their right to reopen the claim in the
future.
Division: Mr O'Connell Mr Keogh Mr Rorke
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD92385 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR13717
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990
PARTIES: ADELPHI/CARLTON LIMITED
(REPRESENTED BY THE FEDERATION OF IRISH EMPLOYERS)
and
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Dispute concerning redundancy payments and the terms and
conditions of employment for the remaining employees.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Company operates the Adelphi and Carlton Cinemas in Dublin
city centre and employs 75 staff.
3. Due to a fall off in attendances as a result of competition in
the suburbs the Company in May, 1992 introduced a rationalisation
plan which called for 19 redundancies on a last in first out
basis. The Company offered redundancy payment of 3 weeks pay per
year of service up to 15 years and #220 per year for service over
15 years. The Company also sought to negotiate revised rosters
and working conditions. The Union rejected the Company's offer
and claimed redundancy compensation of 6 weeks pay per year of
service. It also claimed an increase in pay for those remaining
in employment to reflect the revised working conditions and it
sought to have the redundancies effected on a voluntary basis.
4. As no agreement was reached at local level the dispute was
referred to the Labour Relations Commission in June, 1992. A
conciliation conference was held on 23rd June, 1992. The
following proposals emerged from the conciliation conference:
1. 3 weeks pay per year of service with the removal of the
15 year ceiling.
2. Redundancies to be effected on a L.I.F.O. basis. The
Union to submit a list of volunteers to the Company for
consideration.
3. R.P.I.s to be issued on 3rd July, 1992.
4. Discussions on the post-redundancy situation to take
place during the two week period of notice.
The proposals were rejected by the workers at a general meeting.
The Commission, with the consent of the parties, referred the
dispute on 6th July, 1992 to the Labour Court for investigation
and recommendation under Section 26(1)(a)(b) of the Industrial
Relations Act, 1990. A Court hearing took place on 10th July,
1992.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
5. 1. The workers made redundant cannot expect to find
alternative employment.
2. The Company's offer is not realistic in view of the
savings which will accrue (details supplied to the Court).
3. Those remaining in employment will be on pay much less
than that prevailing in the industry. The Company is seeking
major changes in work practices and should pay the workers
commensurate with these changes.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
6. 1. The redundancies and changes sought by the Company are
necessary to insure its survival in the present trading
conditions (details supplied to the Court).
2. The redundancy package is fair and reasonable and is in
line with past precedent.
3. The Company is prepared to enter into post-redundancy
discussions within the context of Clause 3 of the Programme
for Economic and Social Progress (P.E.S.P.).
RECOMMENDATION:
7. The Court has considered the submissions made by the parties
and recommends as follows.
Redundancy payments
Having regard to terms agreed in the past and particularly having
regard to the circumstances in which the Company is seeking
redundancies at present, the Court considers that the terms
emanating from the conciliation conference are the best available
and should be accepted by the Union.
Rates for remaining staff
The Court recommends that the rates should be reviewed within the
context of Clause 3 of P.E.S.P.. However it does seem to the
Court that the concessions required of staff may in effect exceed
in value the 3% as available. Again having regard to the present
trading difficulties the Court recommends that the staff accept
the application of the P.E.S.P. limitations subject to notice of
their intention to process the claim further when the future of
the employment is more settled. The terms of this recommendation
may be used to support their right to reopen the claim in the
future.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
John O'Connell
______________________
22nd July, 1992. Deputy Chairman
M.D./J.C.
Note
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to
Mr. Michael Daughen, Court Secretary.