Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD92206 Case Number: LCR13672 Section / Act: S26(1) Parties: CONCURRENT COMPUTERS LIMITED - and - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION |
Redundancy compensation.
Recommendation:
7. The Court considers that this long drawn-out dispute should be
resolved by the Company increasing its offer from #500 to#750 in
respect of each of the claimants and by the Union accepting this
offer in full and final settlement of its case.
The Court has taken account of the fact that the claimants did not
remain for the orderly wind-down of the business.
Division: Mr Heffernan Mr Collins Ms Ni Mhurchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD92206 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR13672
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990
PARTIES: CONCURRENT COMPUTERS LIMITED
and
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Redundancy compensation.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Company which was established in February, 1981 to
manufacture supermini-computers is a wholly-owned subsidiary of
Concurrent Computer Corporation of New Jersey, U.S.A. Later in
1981 a European Support Centre (E.S.C.) was set up to provide
logistical, repairs and training support to the Company's sales
and service centres abroad. On 30th July, 1990 the Corporation
announced that due to a continuing fall-off in business that its
Irish subsidiary would close down at the end of September, 1990.
Subsequently the Corporation decided to maintain the E.S.C. in
Cork, maintaining approximately 37 jobs. On 2nd August, 1990 at a
general meeting of the workforce management stated that:
(i) It was vital that all work in progress is cleared in order
to generate revenue. Without this no severence payments
could be made.
(ii) A phase-down plan would be developed and notices issued in
accordance with this. The first notice would not be issued
until 30th August, 1990, to take effect on various dates not
later than 28th September, 1990.
(iii) The Company as a concession would credit each employee with
a minimum of two years service at date of leaving, and
undertook to pay the equivalent of statutory redundancy pay
(again allowing a minimum of two years' service) to any
employee leaving with permission in the meantime i.e. before
receiving notice.
(iv) The Corporation was studying a proposal to maintain E.S.C.
in Cork. A decision would take a few weeks.
3. On 27th August, 1990 severence terms were agreed with the
Union as follows:
(a) 4 weeks' pay per year of service
plus
statutory redundancy pay
plus
#500 to be paid in December, 1990.
(b) Each employee to be regarded as having a minimum of
2 years' service.
4. The six workers here concerned terminated their employment on
various dates in August, 1990. On 28th September, 1990,
manufacturing ceased, employment was terminated and severance
payments were made. The Union submitted a claim on behalf of the
workers concerned. The Union claims that the six workers should
be paid the severence terms as agreed with the Union on 27th
August, 1991. The Company rejected the claim. No agreement could
be reached at local level and the matter was referred to the
Labour Relations Commission. Conciliation conferences were held
on 19th March, 1991, 3rd April, 1991, and 10th April, 1991 and as
no agreement could be reached the matter was referred to the
Labour Court on 3rd April, 1992. The Court hearing took place on
7th May, 1992.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
5. 1. The time between the dates on which the workers left and
the date on which the negotiations on the severance terms were
concluded was only a matter of weeks and in some cases days.
The Company's decision not to pay the terms negotiated was
extremely hard to take.
2. The six workers involved were part of a loyal and
dedicated workforce. This is indisputable. Industrial action
was not taken during the ten years of the Company's
operations. It seemed to be the ideal Company.
3. The nine positions open to the Union's members in the
E.S.C. were filled by application and selection by the
management. The six workers involved were relatively junior
in service. If they had been successful in applying for the
available jobs, it would not have changed the overall
position. Senior workers would have been made redundant at an
increased cost to the Company.
4. The six workers received offers of employment on the basis
that the jobs would not be held open for them. The situation
was aggravated by the delay in negotiating the redundancy
terms. This was due to negotiations taking place between
senior executives of the Corporation and the I.D.A. The
Union had no control over the situation.
5. Recently the Company have moved to smaller premises and
sold by auction all that could be sold from the former
premises. The Company is now back in a profit making
position.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
6. 1. When the workers terminated their employment they were
informed individually that they would be paid two weeks' pay
and no more, irrespective of the outcome of the negotiations
in progress.
2. Five of the workers, because of short service, were not
entitled to any payment. They were paid in accordance with
the concession made by the Company to the workforce on 2nd
August, 1990. They received 2 weeks' pay.
3. It was important that employees left in accordance with
the phase-down plan in order to complete and ship orders to
generate revenue.
4. When the E.S.C. positions were been filled, it transpired
that some workers declined the offer of employment. At least
some of the workers concerned would have been offered
continuity of employment.
5. The workers made a decision to leave the Company knowing
that the widely discussed E.S.C. opportunities were
forthcoming.
RECOMMENDATION:
7. The Court considers that this long drawn-out dispute should be
resolved by the Company increasing its offer from #500 to#750 in
respect of each of the claimants and by the Union accepting this
offer in full and final settlement of its case.
The Court has taken account of the fact that the claimants did not
remain for the orderly wind-down of the business.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Heffernan
___________________
4th June, 1992. Chairman
F.B./J.C.
Note
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to
Mr. Fran Brennan, Court Secretary.