Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD93700 Case Number: LCR14441 Section / Act: S20(1) Parties: JOHN BROWN ENGINEERING (IRELAND) LIMITED - and - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION;PNA |
Dispute concerning redundancy compensation.
Recommendation:
Having considered the submissions and arguments made by the
parties and taking into account the additional information
furnished subsequent to the hearing the Court has come to the view
that the fairest way to resolve the dispute is by the Company
offering and the Union accepting an additional sum of 2 weeks
wages at the appropriate individual rate to each of the claimants.
This gross amount should be added to the total amount paid as set
out in the payments table submitted to the Court and dated 7th
March, 1994.
Division: Ms Owens Mr Brennan Mr Walsh
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD93700 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR14441
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 20(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969
PARTIES:
JOHN BROWN ENGINEERING (IRELAND) LIMITED
(REPRESENTED BY THE IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS CONFEDERATION)
AND
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Dispute concerning redundancy compensation.
BACKGROUND:
2. 1. John Brown Engineering (Ireland) Limited is a wholly
owned subsidiary of John Brown Engineering Limited and
in turn of Trafalgar House plc registered in England.
The Kilkenny Office employs 23 people, provides
engineering contracting services for the water industry,
and is part of the process services division of the
parent company.
2. In October, 1993, six employees received notice that
they would be made redundant on the 5th November, 1993.
The Company gave the reason for the redundancies as a
'severe downturn in the water treatment industry in the
United Kingdom (U.K.). The Union sought a meeting with
the Company to pursue a claim for enhanced redundancy
payments of ten weeks' pay for each year of service in
addition to the payment offered by the Company. The
Company rejected this claim and refused to attend a
conciliation conference at the Labour Relations
Commission to discuss the issue. On 16th December,
1993, the Union referred the matter under Section 20(1)
of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969, to the Labour
Court. The Court heard the dispute on the 7th April,
1994.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The redundancy claim is not for an exorbitant figure
given the financial situation of the Company.
2. Those employees who joined the Company in April, 1990
played a vital role in establishing it in Kilkenny.
3. The workers will experience difficulty obtaining
employment in their chosen professions.
4. The Company put forward a downturn in business as the
reason for redundancy. It is difficult to accept this
as new staff were recruited some months prior to the
redundancies.
5. The Company do not operate a universal redundancy
package for all their employees as statutory redundancy
terms differ between Ireland and the U.K..
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The six redundancies were necessary due to a severe
downturn in the water treatment industry in the U.K..
2. The workers signed an acceptance of the redundancy
arrangements as part of their contracts of employment.
3. The Company paid approximately 5.7 times statutory
redundancy when ex-gratia amounts, pay in lieu of notice
and other extras are taken into account.
4. The Kilkenny operation is suffering continuing losses
and must fight to retain and attract new contracts.
5. The Company operates a standard set of terms and
conditions and a standard redundancy policy for all
staff in the U.K. and Ireland.
RECOMMENDATION:
Having considered the submissions and arguments made by the
parties and taking into account the additional information
furnished subsequent to the hearing the Court has come to the view
that the fairest way to resolve the dispute is by the Company
offering and the Union accepting an additional sum of 2 weeks
wages at the appropriate individual rate to each of the claimants.
This gross amount should be added to the total amount paid as set
out in the payments table submitted to the Court and dated 7th
March, 1994.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
16th May, 1994 Evelyn Owens
P.O'C./M.M. _______________
Deputy Chairman
Note
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to
Mr. Paul O'Connor, Court Secretary.