Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD93549 Case Number: LCR14254 Section / Act: S20(1) Parties: CPV LIMITED - and - TECHNICAL ENGINEERING AND ELECTRICAL UNION |
Dispute concerning the application of Clause 7 (a) of the Redundancy Agreement.
Recommendation:
The Court, having considered all of the views expressed by the
parties takes the view that the Company did not calculate the
severance payments in accordance with the terms of the Agreement
dated 30th June,1993 accepted by the members of the union. The
calculations the Court considers should have been based on the
normal weekly pay including overtime of the employees and
calculated as prescribed in the Redundancy Payments Act.
The Court so recommends.
Division: MrMcGrath Mr Keogh Mr Walsh
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD93549 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR14254
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 20(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969
PARTIES: CPV LIMITED
(REPRESENTED BY THE IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS CONFEDERATION)
AND
TECHNICAL ENGINEERING AND ELECTRICAL UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Dispute concerning the application of Clause 7 (a) of the
Redundancy Agreement.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Company manufactures bulk liquid containers and up to
July 1993, it employed 100 floor operatives. An Agreement on the
redundancy of the 100 workers was reached on 30th June, 1993.
Clause 7 of the Agreement states as follows:
"In addition to Statutory, Entitlements, an additional
severance payment of 2.50 weeks pay per year of service will be
paid to all employees. This payment will be applied as
follow -
(a) Two weeks' pay per year of service, calculated in
accordance with the Redundancy Payment Act, will be
paid in conjunction and in addition to the
Statutory Entitlements.
(b) A further .50 weeks' pay for year service will be
paid at Christmas 1993."
The Company in applying the ex-gratia payment did not use the
Redundancy formula as set out in schedule 3 of the Redundancy
Payments Act, 1969.
A dispute arose between the parties as to how the calculation
should be made. It was the Union's position that the agreement
clearly stipulated that all calculations should be in accordance
with the Redundancy Payments Act. The Company refused to revise
its calculations or meet with the Union. The redundancy payments
were not accepted by 8 workers.
The Union referred the dispute to the Labour Court on 8th
September, 1993, under Section 20(1) of the Industrial Relations
Act, 1993. A Labour Court investigation took place on 21st
October, 1993 (the earliest date suitable to both parties).
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Union has a specific agreement with the Company
which has not been implemented. The Company has refused to
meet with the Union or refer the dispute through the normal
industrial relations machinery (details supplied).
2. All except 8 of the workers have taken the lower amount
offered by the Company on the understanding that the Union
would secure the agreed higher amount. The Company's
argument that its calculations have the imprimatur of the
Department of Enterprise and Employment has been rejected by
that Department (details supplied). The parties negotiated
the Redundancy Agreement freely and the Union's claim is
that the Company to honour its commitments
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The wording in clause 7 (a) is not clear. It was the
Union's wording which was accepted and the Union cannot now
take a different interpretation of its own wording. It was
the Company's intention in drafting the Agreement that the
phrase "calculated in accordance with the Redundancy Payments
Act" would apply to the calculation of service and would not
apply to the calculation of the amount of money which
constituted a week's pay.
2. The Company applied the Agreement in a uniform manner
and it did not calculate weekly earnings in accordance with
the terms of the Redundancy Payments Act. It, therefore, did
not impose the #250 ceiling and some workers benefited
accordingly. The Company's calculation has been accepted in
full and final settlement by over 90% of the workforce
including 2 out of the 3 members of the Union's committee
which negotiated the Agreement.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court, having considered all of the views expressed by the
parties takes the view that the Company did not calculate the
severance payments in accordance with the terms of the Agreement
dated 30th June,1993 accepted by the members of the union. The
calculations the Court considers should have been based on the
normal weekly pay including overtime of the employees and
calculated as prescribed in the Redundancy Payments Act.
The Court so recommends.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
23rd November, 1993 Tom McGrath
J.F./A.L. _______________
Deputy Chairman
Note
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should by addressed to
Mr. Jerome Forde, Court Secretary.