Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD92617 Case Number: LCR13834 Section / Act: S26(1) Parties: BAILEY GIBSON - and - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION |
Dispute concerning enhanced redundancy terms.
Recommendation:
5. The Court has considered the submissions made by the parties.
It notes the serious financial situation with which the Company
has to deal but is of the opinion that, in anticipation of further
changes which are expected with the introduction of new equipment,
an improvement in redundancy terms is warranted and in the
circumstances recommends that the Company agrees to similar terms
as those offered in the proposals of the 14th January, 1992.
Division: Mr O'Connell Mr Brennan Mr Rorke
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD92617 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR13834
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990
PARTIES: BAILEY GIBSON
(REPRESENTED BY THE FEDERATION OF IRISH EMPLOYERS)
and
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Dispute concerning enhanced redundancy terms.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Company is involved in the manufacture of packaging
material for the food, pharmaceutical and beverage markets. In
August, 1992, the Company advised the Union that, due to
rationalisation, it was seeking four redundancies and offered the
following redundancy terms: 2 weeks' pay per year of service
inclusive of statutory entitlements. The Union rejected the
Company's offer and sought enhanced terms. Subsequently 3 workers
accepted the Company's offer. The remaining worker was due to be
made redundant on the 29th October, 1992 on a last-in first-out
basis. The issue was referred to the Labour Relations Commission
on the 14th September, 1992 but no agreement was reached. The
dispute was referred to the Labour Court by the Labour Relations
Commission on the 8th October, 1992. A Court hearing was held on
the 28th October, 1992.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. Following an industrial dispute in January, 1992 the
Company offered redundancy terms to workers which were
superior to the terms presently on offer (details supplied to
the Court). Both the proposals of the 14th January and the
present offer are insufficient to attract the required number
of volunteers. At a previous meeting the Union claimed 3
weeks' pay plus statutory entitlements. Management rejected
this claim. The Union does not accept the Company's proposal
to make the worker concerned redundant on a last-in first-out
basis on the present terms. The Company proposes to introduce
overtime working in the period up to Christmas. It could keep
the worker who is due to be made redundant in employment up to
that time when further discussions could take place on the
issue.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. Since May, 1991, there have been 21 redundancies in the
Company and settlements were based on 2 weeks' pay per year of
service inclusive of statutory redundancy. The standard terms
are on offer to the worker concerned and were accepted by
three other workers. The Company cannot afford to increase
redundancy payments because of a deteriorating financial
position which has continued despite rationalisation. The
redundancy package in January, 1992 was negotiated under
strike conditions as part of a rationalisation programme.
2. The Company's main priority is to survive and maintain
employment for the reduced workforce which it can
realistically support. There is no short-term prospect of an
improvement in market conditions. It is essential that a
further redundancy be effected without delay.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. The Court has considered the submissions made by the parties.
It notes the serious financial situation with which the Company
has to deal but is of the opinion that, in anticipation of further
changes which are expected with the introduction of new equipment,
an improvement in redundancy terms is warranted and in the
circumstances recommends that the Company agrees to similar terms
as those offered in the proposals of the 14th January, 1992.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
John O'Connell
____________________
13th November, 1992. Deputy Chairman
T.O'D./J.C.
Note
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to
Mr. Tom O'Dea, Court Secretary.