Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD93542 Case Number: AD93101 Section / Act: S13(9) Parties: CROWLEY BROTHERS LIMITED - and - IRISH DISTRIBUTIVE AND ADMINISTRATIVE TRADE UNION |
Appeal against Rights Commissioner's Recommendation BC208/93.
Recommendation:
The Court does not find grounds to warrant amending the Rights
Commissioners recommendation. The Court upholds the
recommendation and rejects the appeal of the employer.
The Court, so decides.
Division: MrMcGrath Mr Brennan Mr Walsh
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD93542 APPEAL DECISION NO. AD10193
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 13(9), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969
PARTIES: CROWLEY BROTHERS LIMITED
AND
IRISH DISTRIBUTIVE AND ADMINISTRATIVE TRADE UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Appeal against Rights Commissioner's Recommendation BC208/93.
BACKGROUND:
2. 1. The Company is a family-owned drapery business located
in Newcastle West, Co. Limerick. The worker concerned was
employed with the Company for 18 years. In 1989, 6 workers
were employed by the Company. Five workers were subsequently
made redundant because of poor trading conditions. In April,
1993 the worker concerned was made redundant and received a
statutory redundancy entitlement of #1,456. The Union had
looked for #5,000 plus statutory entitlement for the worker.
The Company rejected this, pleading serious financial
difficulties.
The dispute was referred to the Rights Commissioners Service
and a recommendation was issued on 3rd September, 1993 as
follows:
"In the light of the above my Recommendation is that the
Company should increase the redundancy settlement to the
worker by #750 and that this be accepted by the Union
and the worker in full and final discharge of all claims
on the employer in relation to the employment and its
termination".
(The worker and the Company were named in the above
recommendation)
The recommendation was appealed by the Company to the Labour
Court on 17th September, 1993 under Section 13(9) of the
Industrial Relations Act, 1969. The Labour Court heard the
appeal on 2nd November, 1993.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The worker concerned was with the Company for 18 years
and was a loyal and dedicated employee. Four workers who
were made redundant by the Company in 1989 received #1,000
each in excess of the statutory entitlement.
2. The worker concerned has been unable to find alternative
work. In recent years the worker did not receive a pay rise.
As a result, his wages fell by #30 - #40 a week below other
workers in Newcastle West on Union rates. The poor trading
position of the Company is through no fault of the worker
concerned.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
5. 1. The number of workers employed has fallen from 17 in the
1970's to the position where there is only 1 non-family
worker employed.
2. Due to continued bad trading conditions the Company has
been in a loss-making situation for the last few years.
There was no choice but to make the worker concerned
redundant. A letter from the Bank (details enclosed)
confirms this.
DECISION:
The Court does not find grounds to warrant amending the Rights
Commissioners recommendation. The Court upholds the
recommendation and rejects the appeal of the employer.
The Court, so decides.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
6th December,1993 Tom McGrath
C.O'N./A.L. _______________
Deputy Chairman
Note
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should by addressed to
Mr. Ciaran O'Neill, Court Secretary.