Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD92558 Case Number: LCR13764 Section / Act: S26(1) Parties: CONTAINERS AND PRESSURE VESSELS LIMITED - and - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION |
Dispute concerning severence pay/compensation in respect of a worker.
Recommendation:
10. The Court wishes to note the assurances given by the Company
to the Union at the hearing regarding the worker's pension
entitlements, and its undertaking to issue a letter regarding
same.
Having regard to (1) the peculiar difficulties which this case has
presented including the length of time which has elapsed since the
worker was made redundant, and (2) the terms of LCR13658, the
Court is of the view that the standards that might normally be
accepted as applicable for redundancy in the area, would not
afford adequate compensation in the present instance. The Court
accordingly recommends that a lump sum of #75,000 be paid to the
claimant in full settlement of all aspects of the Union's claim.
The Court further urges both parties to accept this recommendation
in order that full work be resumed at the plant, that the
viability of the Company be safeguarded and that the workforce can
be assured of job security.
Division: Ms Owens Mr Brennan Mr Rorke
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD92558 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR13764
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990
PARTIES: CONTAINERS AND PRESSURE VESSELS LIMITED
(REPRESENTED BY THE FEDERATION OF IRISH EMPLOYERS)
and
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Dispute concerning severence pay/compensation in respect of a
worker.
BACKGROUND:
2. The worker concerned was dismissed from has employment by
reason of redundancy with effect from March, 1992. The worker
held the position of personnel manager having worked his way up
from general operative.
3. The Union disputed the dismissal and the dispute was the
subject of a Labour Court investigation. In L.C.R. 13658 dated
20th March, 1992 the Court recommended:-
"The claimant had a long and exemplary record in the Company
having worked his way up to the position of Personnel
Manager. Whilst noting the Company's arguments supporting
their case for declaring the claimant redundant under the
provisions of the Redundancy Payments Act as amended the
Court nevertheless is satisfied that he was treated unfairly
and that with goodwill it should have been possible to retain
him in employment in the Company at an appropriate level.
The Court accordingly recommends concession of the Union's
claim that the claimant be re-instated".
4. At meetings at local level following the issue of L.C.R. 13658
the Union sought the worker's re-instatement and explored a number
of possibilities with the Company. The Company indicated that it
was not in a position to offer the worker suitable alternative
employment and increased its offer of compensation from #50,000
(increased from an initial offer of 35,000) to #64,000. The Union
rejected this offer, sought the workers notional re-instatement
and an increase in the Company's offer.
5. In the interim the Union balloted its members (18 workers
employed in the administrative and management area) on industrial
action. Strike action commenced on 28th July, 1992. Four workers
subsequently resigned from the Union and returned to work. The
Union sought and was granted an all-out picket by I.C.T.U. (The
production workers, represented by another Union, have voted in
favour of strike action). The all-out picket was to come into
effect from 14th September, 1992. This was deferred pending the
outcome of the Labour Court investigation.
6. The Company increased its offer to #71,000 following the
commencement of the industrial action. The increased offer was
rejected by the Union and the Company withdrew the offer on 24th
August, 1992. Throughout the negotiations the Union has
continually adjusted the amount of compensation sought as it
maintains that the worker should be returned to the pay-roll
pending the resolution of the dispute.
7. The dispute was referred to the Labour Relations Commission.
Conciliation conferences were held on 28th July and 14th
September, 1992. As no agreement was reached the Commission, with
the consent of the parties, referred the dispute to the Labour
Court on 15th September, 1992 for investigation and recommendation
under Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A
Court hearing took place on 17th September, 1992. The Court
issued its recommendation by letter dated 18th September, 1992.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
8. 1. The matter of compensation is a poor substitute for the
loss of the worker's job, in view of his long and dedicated
service.
2. In the context of L.C.R. 13658 the worker should be
notionally re-instated and accordingly this would entitle him
to eight weeks pay in lieu of notice.
3. The worker should, in addition to notice, be paid six
months salary to 30th September, 1992 and five weeks pay per
year of service, plus statutory redundancy lump sum (in line
with the norm in the Cavan area). Clerical workers were paid
a 6% increase in salary in April, 1992. If this increase is
taken into account the Union's claim amounts to #83,589; if
omitted the amount is #79,076.
4. The worker is seeking notional re-instatement to protect
his pension entitlements (details supplied to the Court).
5. The worker has a young family and has very little
opportunity of securing suitable alternative employment.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
9. 1. The worker's position was made redundant following a total
re-organisation of the managerial function (details supplied
to the Court). In L.C.R. 13658 the Court recommended that he
be offered suitable alternative employment. The Company does
not have a suitable position for him and has gone beyond any
reasonable requirement to settle this dispute but has met with
intransigence by the Union which has consistently moved
position in the negotiations.
2. The worker was paid 10 weeks pay instead of the statutory
8 weeks pay in lieu of notice. He was also given 2 weeks
leave with pay during his period of notice.
3. The Company has given the worker assurances that his
pension entitlements will not be adversely affected.
4. The actions pursued by the worker have damaged his own
position, the fortunes of his former colleagues, the position
of the Company and in turn the potential security of
employment of a number of employees.
RECOMMENDATION:
10. The Court wishes to note the assurances given by the Company
to the Union at the hearing regarding the worker's pension
entitlements, and its undertaking to issue a letter regarding
same.
Having regard to (1) the peculiar difficulties which this case has
presented including the length of time which has elapsed since the
worker was made redundant, and (2) the terms of LCR13658, the
Court is of the view that the standards that might normally be
accepted as applicable for redundancy in the area, would not
afford adequate compensation in the present instance. The Court
accordingly recommends that a lump sum of #75,000 be paid to the
claimant in full settlement of all aspects of the Union's claim.
The Court further urges both parties to accept this recommendation
in order that full work be resumed at the plant, that the
viability of the Company be safeguarded and that the workforce can
be assured of job security.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Evelyn Owens
___________________
13th November, 1992. Deputy Chairman
M.D./J.C.
Note
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to
Mr. Michael Daughen, Court Secretary.