Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD9250 Case Number: LCR13598 Section / Act: S26(1) Parties: NOONAN CLEANING LIMITED - and - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION |
Dispute concerning a redundancy claim on behalf of 3 workers.
Recommendation:
5. Having considered the submissions from both parties and taking
into account
(a) the fact that the Company lost the contract through changed
circumstances and
(b) the efforts made by them to place the claimants in other
locations, the Court recommends that the Company pay a sum of
£500 in addition to their statutory entitlements to each of
the claimants in full settlement of their claim for enhanced
redundancy payment.
Division: Ms Owens Mr McHenry Mr Devine
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD9250 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR13598
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990
PARTIES: NOONAN CLEANING LIMITED
and
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Dispute concerning a redundancy claim on behalf of 3 workers.
BACKGROUND:
2. 1. The Company is one of the largest cleaning contractors in
the country. It operates many contracts in several locations.
The Company employed 14 workers to provide cleaning services
at a Company called Technicon in Swords, Co. Dublin. The
contract between the Company and Technicon terminated on 30th
November, 1991.
2. Prior to the termination of the contract 6 workers had
been placed on other contracts which the Company held in other
areas. Up to the Court investigation, 11 in total had
accepted alternative offers of employment within the Company
and 3 workers are now seeking an enhanced redundancy package.
3. The 3 workers were employed in a part-time capacity and
have 7, 9 and 10 years service respectively. The dispute was
referred to the conciliation service of the Labour Relations
Commission on 5th November, 1991 and a conciliation conference
was held on 20th November, 1991. The Union argued that unless
suitable alternative employment could be made available in the
immediate future, the workers should be declared redundant and
compensated by the payment of 4 times their statutory
entitlement. The Company's position was that as it was making
every effort to redeploy the workers, redundancy was not
relevant. No resolution was possible and the dispute was
referred to the Labour Court on 17th January, 1992. A Labour
Court investigation took place on 6th February, 1992.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. When it was notified to the Company that the contract
would be lost, the Union informed the Company that it was
seeking redundancy terms for the workers. The Company laid
off the workers for 4 weeks. At this time there are 3 workers
with long service with the Company for whom the Union is
seeking enhanced redundancy payments.
2. The Company has argued that a redundancy situation does
not exist because alternative jobs were offered to the 3
workers. It is the Union's view that the Company is
attempting to avoid its responsibilities under the Act as the
positions offered could not be considered as reasonable
alternative employment (details supplied). The workers have
been out of work since 30th November, 1991. They have
acknowledged good service with the Company over many years and
are entitled to an enhanced redundancy package.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Company has made great efforts to place displaced
workers when the contract was lost (details supplied). The
Company accepts that periods of lay-off cannot last
indefinitely, nevertheless workers should not refuse offers of
reasonable alternative employment, otherwise they will forfeit
any rights which they may have in the matter.
2. If a redundancy situation arose, payments in excess of
statutory would not be appropriate because companies in the
industry have not had the opportunity to fund for redundancy
prior to 6th April, 1991, the date of the legislation
entitling part-time workers to redundancy. The contract
cleaning industry is highly competitive and companies are not
in a position to fund redundancy payments in excess of the
statutory entitlement. The redundancy situation arose from a
loss of business and payments in excess of statutory are not
appropriate as there is no opportunity for the Company to
recoup the money.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. Having considered the submissions from both parties and taking
into account
(a) the fact that the Company lost the contract through changed
circumstances and
(b) the efforts made by them to place the claimants in other
locations, the Court recommends that the Company pay a sum of
£500 in addition to their statutory entitlements to each of
the claimants in full settlement of their claim for enhanced
redundancy payment.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Evelyn Owens
________________________
20th March, 1992 Deputy Chairman.
J.F./J.C.
Note
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to
Mr. Jerome Forde, Court Secretary.