Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD93132 Case Number: LCR14038 Section / Act: S26(1) Parties: WILLIAMS WALLER LIMITED - and - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION |
Dispute concerning redundancy terms for 2 workers.
Recommendation:
5. Having considered the submissions from the parties the Court
is of the view that the Company should increase its net offer of
redundancy to its two claimants by a sum of #2,500.
Division: Ms Owens Mr Keogh Mr O'Murchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD93132 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR14038
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990
PARTIES: WILLIAMS WALLER LIMITED
(REPRESENTED BY THE IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS CONFEDERATION)
and
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Dispute concerning redundancy terms for 2 workers.
BACKGROUND:
2. 1. The Company (part of the Williams Group) is involved in
the agri-business sector selling fertilizers and general
supplies to farmers. It also buys grain from farmers. The
Company's headquarters is in Tullamore and it has 10 depots
across the Midlands.
2. During 1992, the Company made 17 workers from its various
depots redundant on a voluntary basis. The package offered
was 3 weeks pay per year of service, plus statutory, plus pay
in lieu of notice. There were some variations. The Union
refused to negotiate on a forced redundancy situation.
3. The Company sought to make the 2 workers concerned with
the dispute redundant and, on 16th October, 1992, RP9 forms
issued to the workers. The RP9 forms were later withdrawn and
the matter of redundancy terms was referred to the Labour
Relations Commission.
4. Conciliation conferences were held on 10th December, 1992,
and 13th January, 1993. The parties were unable to agree
redundancy terms for the 2 workers and the dispute was
referred to the Labour Court on 18th February, 1993 under
Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour
Court investigation took place in Tullamore on 30th March,
1993.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Company has refused to negotiate redundancy
settlements in the normal way (details supplied). The Company
has traded profitably over a long number of years. This
profitability has been assisted by the 2 workers who have each
over 30 years service. The workers are the 2 most senior
members in the Tullamore outlet. By making the workers
redundant, the Company has departed from the voluntary
redundancy terms secured within the Group in the past.
2. The workers should be treated favourably by the Company,
particularly, in a situation where it is looking to increase
its profitability through redundancies. There is some
evidence that the Company has done deals with other workers,
in excess of its offer to the 2 workers concerned (details
supplied). The workers were previously interchangeable with a
sister Company (details supplied) and workers in that Company
received 5 weeks pay per year of service, plus statutory, plus
other special payments, through redundancy settlements.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Company as a whole has been losing money over the past
few years, due to its high costs, inefficient manning levels,
and the general decline in farmers' purchasing power. The
Company was recently offered for sale but no sale was agreed.
The Company's performance is uneven due to its labour costs.
This has been addressed to some extent by the redundancy
programme. The Tullamore depot is the only outlet to remain
unaffected and this situation must be addressed.
2. The Company's offer to the workers is in line with past
precedents and is generous in the circumstances (details
supplied). The Company has shown great patience in its
dealings with the Union and has tried to take its views into
account. The Company cannot accept the Union's proposals on
redundancy payments (details supplied) on the grounds of
present costs and the precedents which settlement of this
nature would set for the future.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. Having considered the submissions from the parties the Court
is of the view that the Company should increase its net offer of
redundancy to its two claimants by a sum of #2,500.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Evelyn Owens
__________________
14th April, 1993 Deputy Chairman.
J.F./J.C.
Note
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to
Mr. Jerome Forde, Court Secretary.