Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD95225 Case Number: LCR14818 Section / Act: S26(1) Parties: DWANS (THE IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION) - and - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION |
Dispute concerning the calculation of redundancy payments.
Recommendation:
Taking into account all aspects of this case the Court does not
recommend any change in the redundancy package.
Division: Mr Flood Mr McHenry Mr Walsh
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD95225 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR14818
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990
PARTIES:
DWANS
(REPRESENTED BY THE IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION)
AND
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Dispute concerning the calculation of redundancy payments.
BACKGROUND:
2. The dispute arose following the takeover by the Company (part
of the C & C Group) of a depot in Clontarf, which had formed
part of Allied Bottlers. Having acquired the Clontarf depot,
the Company closed its depot at Cherry Orchard. Both sets of
distribution staff (Allied and Dwans) were amalgamated in the
Clontarf depot. The Company sought to bring work practices
at Allied into line with work practices at Dwans. Arising
from this, voluntary redundancy was made available to
interested workers.
The dispute concerns the method of calculation of redundancy
payments for 6 applicants. The formula offered by the
Company comprised 4 weeks' basic pay per year of service plus
a #500 goodwill payment for immediate and peaceful
implementation of changes required by the Company. The Union
claims that the Company should have included, as part of
basic pay, two allowances paid to workers in Allied Bottlers,
i.e., payments of #2.55 p.w. in respect of disturbance, and
#6.55 p.w. in respect of punctuality. These amounts had been
paid weekly but were not consolidated into basic pay.
The dispute was the subject of conciliation conference under
the auspices of the Labour Relations Commission, at which
agreement was not reached. The dispute was referred to the
Labour Court, on the 30th of March, 1995, in accordance with
Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. The
Court investigated the dispute on 20th of June, 1995, the
earliest date convenient to both parties.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Company made a proposal of "four (4) weeks' pay per
year of service". This was understood to be in line
with the industrial norms of a week's pay per year of
service meaning "average earnings" per week.
2. All discussions with the Company involved the Company's
recognition of two allowances as part of workers'
regular earnings.
3. The payments were incorporated into basic pay in the new
pay-structure agreed with the Company.
4. The 'basic' pay referred to in the signed redundancy
application was challenged by the workers on the grounds
that basic pay should mean all regular payments other
than meal allowances.
5. The terms offered by the Company were pushed through
without allowing for due process and further negotiation
to take place. Consequently, workers believe that they
accepted the terms offered, under duress.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. Under the circumstances whereby some of the workers
being made redundant would have to be replaced by
contract delivery personnel, the Company was not
prepared to go beyond basic pay, as clearly defined for
Allied Bottlers personnel on their payroll, in the
calculation of redundancy entitlements for them under
the scheme. The offer of 4 weeks' basic pay per year of
service, inclusive of statutory entitlements, plus #500
as a goodwill gesture for immediate and peaceful
implementation, was considered by the Company to be very
generous.
2. The issue of exclusion of other allowances was contested
at the time by the workers' acting Shop Steward. In
response, he was informed by the Company that the 4 week
offer would have to be reviewed downward if allowances
were to be included. This was prior to the issue of
RP1s.
3. The redundancies were voluntary. Work was available for
any of those personnel who left on that package.
4. Contrary to what was been alleged, no pressure of any
sort was brought to bear on the applicants by the
Company.
RECOMMENDATION:
Taking into account all aspects of this case the Court does not
recommend any change in the redundancy package.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
10th July,1995 Finbarr Flood
M.K./M.M. ______________
Deputy Chairman
Note
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to
Mr. Michael Keegan, Court Secretary.