Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD93272 Case Number: LCR14069 Section / Act: S26(1) Parties: CLAREMORRIS LIMITED - and - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION |
Enhanced redundancy terms.
Recommendation:
4. The Court regards the failure of the Company to attend the
hearing of this case as a discourtesy, not only to the Court, but
equally to the workers who have given loyal, extensive and
effective service.
The Union as far as it could, commented on all the issues
involved, including the trading difficulties encountered.
In normal circumstances the Court would recommend up to 3 weeks
payment per year of service but having regard for the financial
difficulties being encountered by the parent U.K. company, the
Court recommends that in addition to statutory redundancy, the
Company should pay each worker a sum equivalent to the rebate
applicable to his/her redundancy payment.
Division: Mr Heffernan Mr McHenry Mr Walsh
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD93272 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR14069
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT 1990
SECTION 26(1)
PARTIES: CLAREMORRIS LIMITED
and
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Enhanced redundancy terms.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Company manufactures weather proof sports gear. It has
been in operation since 1971 and employs 35 workers. The parent
Company in the U.K. trades as Peter Storm. There have been
considerable periods of short-time working at the Claremorris
plant since 1989. Following major trading difficulties the parent
Company decided that the Claremorris plant would close with effect
from 15th May, 1993. Workers were given their Minimum Notice
entitlements and the Company offered to pay the workers statutory
redundancy. The Union sought 5 weeks pay per year of service plus
statutory entitlements. Management rejected the claim. The issue
was referred to the Labour Relations Commission and a conciliation
conference was held in April, 1993. As no agreement was reached
the dispute was referred to the Labour Court on the 22nd April,
1993. A Court hearing was held on the 4th May, 1993. The Company
did not attend the hearing.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The service of the workers with the Company ranges from
5 to 21 years. They are a dedicated and committed workforce,
have given excellent co-operation to the Company and
throughout its period of operations at Claremorris there have
been no industrial disputes. The Union had great difficulty
eliciting information from the Company regarding its financial
difficulties and impending closure. Senior management had
only one brief meeting with the Union. They did not negotiate
with the Union in a meaningful way, and the workers concerned
have been treated in a shabby fashion
2. The workers concerned have little prospect of obtaining
employment locally as the area is an unemployment blackspot.
The workers must be adequately compensated for their loyal
service to the Company and the loss of their jobs. The
Union's claim, in the circumstances, is reasonable.
RECOMMENDATION:
4. The Court regards the failure of the Company to attend the
hearing of this case as a discourtesy, not only to the Court, but
equally to the workers who have given loyal, extensive and
effective service.
The Union as far as it could, commented on all the issues
involved, including the trading difficulties encountered.
In normal circumstances the Court would recommend up to 3 weeks
payment per year of service but having regard for the financial
difficulties being encountered by the parent U.K. company, the
Court recommends that in addition to statutory redundancy, the
Company should pay each worker a sum equivalent to the rebate
applicable to his/her redundancy payment.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Heffernan
6th May, 1993 ----------------
T O'D/U.S. Chairman
NOTE:
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to
Mr Tom O'Dea, Court Secretary.