Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD9264 Case Number: LCR13595 Section / Act: S26(1) Parties: CLERY AND COMPANY LIMITED - and - IRISH DISTRIBUTIVE AND ADMINISTRATIVE TRADE UNION |
Dispute concerning voluntary redundancy terms.
Recommendation:
5. Having considered the submissions made by the parties, the
Court, having regard to the fact that no specific redundancy
exists in this group of staff, recommends that the formula
proposed by the Industrial Relations Officer be accepted by all
concerned.
Division: Mr O'Connell Mr Brennan Ms Ni Mhurchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD9264 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR13595
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990
PARTIES: CLERY AND COMPANY LIMITED
(REPRESENTED BY THE FEDERATION OF IRISH EMPLOYERS)
and
IRISH DISTRIBUTIVE AND ADMINISTRATIVE TRADE UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Dispute concerning voluntary redundancy terms.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Company's redundancy package of £350 per year of service
plus statutory entitlements was negotiated in 1983. Early in 1990
a worker was declared redundant and the Union sought an
improvement in the redundancy package on behalf of the worker.
The Company rejected the Union's claim. Following a conciliation
conference which was held in May, 1990 the worker accepted the
Company's offer and retired. Subsequently the Union again
submitted a claim for an improvement in the redundancy scheme.
Management rejected the claim. The issue was referred to the
Labour Relations Commission in January, 1992. A conciliation
conference was held on the 7th January, 1992 from which settlement
proposals were made by the Industrial Relations Officer as
follows:
(1) Redundancies under the present scheme will only occur
with the agreement of the individual concerned.
(2) The Company will discuss the application of the package
on an individual basis in the light of personal
circumstances on the strict understanding that such
discussions do not create a precedent.
The proposals were rejected by the Union.
The dispute was referred to the Labour Court by the Labour
Relations Commission on the 20th January, 1992. The Court
investigated the dispute on the 28th February, 1992.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The 1983 redundancy scheme was presented to staff as a
voluntary package and has not been changed since its
introduction. In recent years the Union has received reports
from members who have been approached by Management and
encouraged to volunteer for redundancy. The encouragement can
take the form of correspondence from the Company or
alternatively workers may be notified on an individual basis.
The worker who accepted the Company's offer in 1990 was
written to and advised that she was unable to do her job
satisfactorily and that, if she did not choose the special
retirement option, she would be declared redundant on the
normal terms. The worker accepted the special option and
retired.
2. The Union is anxious to secure a genuine operation of the
voluntary redundancy scheme. The present formula, negotiated
in 1983, is long overdue for updating. The Union has outlined
proposals (details supplied to the Court) indicating the value
of the original scheme in terms of weekly wages and a
corresponding formula based on current pay scales. As the
existing formula is out of date, and considering the
compulsory nature of the scheme, the Union asks the Court to
recommend that future redundancies should be of a genuine
voluntary nature. The Court is also asked to recommend that
the redundancy figure should be calculated on the basis of
3.85 weeks wages per year of service, plus statutory
entitlements.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. Since 1983 the Company has not found it necessary to
approach the Unions on the question of collective
redundancies. The Company has pursued a policy of
non-replacement of staff as they retire. The Company has also
discussed with individual workers (at their request) terms for
voluntary redundancy in accordance with the 1983 formula. The
Company has also advised workers over the age of 55 of the
availability of voluntary early retirement terms (details
supplied to the Court). The worker, quoted by the Union, who
retired in July, 1990 accepted the Company's voluntary
severance package.
2. There is no obligation or pressure on any staff member to
leave employment on the terms currently available. In these
circumstances the Company should not be expected to enter into
negotiations with the Union. Should the Company choose to
initiate a request for redundancies discussions would take
place on the terms for such redundancies with the appropriate
unions. As another Union, S.I.P.T.U., also represents sales
staff, and in fact is the majority Union for this category it
would be inappropriate for the Company to agree redundancy
terms with I.D.A.T.U. without similar discussions taking place
with S.I.P.T.U. The current scheme operated by the Company
provides for voluntary redundancy. No staff member has been
forced to retire from employment. There is no need to make
adjustments to the current redundancy package. In the event
of future redundancies the Company will have discussions with
the relevant Unions.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. Having considered the submissions made by the parties, the
Court, having regard to the fact that no specific redundancy
exists in this group of staff, recommends that the formula
proposed by the Industrial Relations Officer be accepted by all
concerned.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
John O'Connell
_________________________
10th March, 1992 Deputy Chairman.
T.O'D./J.C.