Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD92426 Case Number: LCR13803 Section / Act: S13(9) Parties: LEAF IRELAND LIMITED - and - MANUFACTURING SCIENCE FINANCE |
Appeal by the Union against Rights Commissioner's recommendation No. B.C. 154/92 concerning increased redundancy payments.
Recommendation:
5. Having considered the submissions of the parties, the Court
does not find grounds to alter the Rights Commissioner's
recommendation other than in the case of Mrs Sheerin, whose
payment should be increased from #5,000 to #7,000.
The Court so decides.
Division: Mr Heffernan Mr Keogh Mr Rorke
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD92426 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR13803
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969
SECTION 13(9)
PARTIES: LEAF IRELAND LIMITED
(Represented by The Federation of Irish Employers)
and
MANUFACTURING SCIENCE FINANCE
SUBJECT:
1. Appeal by the Union against Rights Commissioner's
recommendation No. B.C. 154/92 concerning increased redundancy
payments.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Company makes sugar confectionery and is located at
Kilcock, Co. Kildare. It employs 182 workers. In April, 1992 the
Company declared eight workers redundant. Redundancy settlements
were based on workers' service and roughly equated to one year's
salary. (Details supplied to the Court). Four of the eight
workers claimed enhanced redundancy payments in line with previous
redundancy packages in the Company (five (5) weeks pay per year of
service plus statutory entitlements). Management rejected the
claim on the grounds that the financial resources were not
available to provide increased payments. The issue was referred
to a Rights Commissioner for investigation and recommendation. On
the 16th July, 1992 the Rights Commissioner issued his
recommendation as follows:-
"In the light of the above it is my conviction that in the
circumstances outlined to me at the investigation the
financial resources just are not there for the Company to
increase the redundancy packages offered to each of the four
claimants. I therefore uphold the position of the employer
and I recommend that the claims must fail".
On the 27th July, 1992 the Union appealed the Rights
Commissioner's recommendation to the Labour Court under Section
13(9) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969. The Court heard the
appeal on the 5th October, 1992.
UNION'S ARGUMENT:
3. 1. When a previous redundancy programme was implemented in
1990, workers received redundancy settlements amounting to
five (5) weeks pay per year of service plus statutory
entitlements. This formula was also used at the Roscommon
plant in 1991. In the case of one of the four workers
concerned he has received a sum of money equal to this
formula. The formula has been established by custom and
practice and should be applied to the three workers concerned
in view of the savings achieved by the Company in making the
workers redundant. The amount of money involved is not
substantial and is readily available to a Company of this
size.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Company has been forced to rationalise its country
wide operations due to recession. In 1988, the Galway plant
was closed. In 1990, eight supervisors/managers were made
redundant at Kilcock, and in 1991 the Roscommon plant was
closed. The Company was forced to make the workers
redundant due to continued and increasing losses (details
supplied to the Court). The Company does not have the
financial resources to increase the settlements made to the
workers concerned. In previous redundancy situations, the
Company was either in profit or was not making crippling
losses and rationalisation allowed for savings in overheads.
In the present redundancy situation no such savings were made
due to factors outside the Company's control.
2. The Company has a defined and inflexible budget, which
is imposed by the parent Company from which to fund the
ex-gratia settlements. Management has attempted to distribute
the funds fairly and equitably, according to workers' service
and contribution to the Company. The payments offered to the
workers concerned are fair and generous.
DECISION:
5. Having considered the submissions of the parties, the Court
does not find grounds to alter the Rights Commissioner's
recommendation other than in the case of Mrs Sheerin, whose
payment should be increased from #5,000 to #7,000.
The Court so decides.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Heffernan
21st October, 1992 ---------------
T O'D.U.S. Chairman