Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD9476 Case Number: LCR14406 Section / Act: S26(1) Parties: NORWICH UNION - and - MANUFACTURING SCIENCE FINANCE |
Claim by the Union on behalf of 5 workers for improved severance terms.
Recommendation:
The Court has fully considered all of the issues raised by the
parties in their oral and written submissions.
Whilst recognising the implications for the staff concerned, and
taking the view that where possible redundancy should be the last
option resorted to, the Court, given all the circumstances of the
case and taking into account the redundancy and relocation scheme
does not find grounds to concede the claim of the Union and
accordingly rejects it.
The Court so recommends.
Division: MrMcGrath Mr Keogh Mr Walsh
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD9476 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR14406
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990
PARTIES:
NORWICH UNION
AND
MANUFACTURING SCIENCE FINANCE
SUBJECT:
1. 1. Claim by the Union on behalf of 5 workers for improved
severance terms.
BACKGROUND:
2. 1. A voluntary severance package was agreed in 1993. A
scheme called "voluntary early retirement scheme and
voluntary severance scheme" was subsequently launched and it
met with a good response. Further reorganisation took place
in the Cork and Limerick offices towards the end of 1993.
The Union is now pursuing a claim for enhanced severance
terms for 5 workers (4 in Cork and 1 in Limerick) on the
basis that their situations involve forced redundancy.
2. The claim could not be resolved locally and it was
referred to the Labour Relations Commission. A conciliation
conference was held on 17th January, 1994. the Union argued
that the severance package (5 weeks' pay per year of service)
was to cover voluntary severance only. It was the Company's
position that the severance package would apply to all early
retirement and redundancy situations.
3. No progress was made at conciliation and the claim was
referred to the Labour Court on 1st February, 1993 under
Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act 1990. A Labour
Court investigation took place on 18th February, 1994.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Union reached agreement with the Company on a
voluntary severance scheme. The Union clearly reserved its
position in the event of a "forced" situation arising. A
forced situation has arisen for the 5 workers in this case
(details supplied) and their situation must be dealt with
sympathetically.
2. The Union did not agree to the application of the
voluntary terms to a forced redundancy situation. In a
forced situation other considerations apply. The Court
should take into account the financial savings for the
Company by the workers not being able to relocate. The 3
most recent redundancy agreements for the industry are in
excess of the Company's payment.
3. The Union submits that the 5 workers cannot be
considered to have an option on whether to take redundancy or
not. In these circumstances, the workers should receive
enhanced compensation per year of service to include the
lifting of the ceiling on severance terms.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Company's intention concerning the severance package
was that it would apply to all early retirement and
redundancy situations. While the Union might have indicated
that it was reserving its position in the event of forced
redundancies being necessary, the Company had equally made it
clear that there would be no improvement in the package
should such a situation arise.
2. The overall terms are fair and reasonable and the
Company has acted responsibly in its dealings with the Union.
At this stage, it would be inequitable to offer a select
group enhanced terms when some 40 workers have already
accepted and received, on both a voluntary and involuntary
basis, the terms negotiated through normal industrial
relations channels.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court has fully considered all of the issues raised by the
parties in their oral and written submissions.
Whilst recognising the implications for the staff concerned, and
taking the view that where possible redundancy should be the last
option resorted to, the Court, given all the circumstances of the
case and taking into account the redundancy and relocation scheme
does not find grounds to concede the claim of the Union and
accordingly rejects it.
The Court so recommends.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
18th April, 1994. Tom McGrath
J.F./A.L. _______________
Deputy Chairman
Note
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to
Mr. Jerome Forde, Court Secretary.