Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD95493 Case Number: AD9578 Section / Act: S13(9) Parties: CITYVIEW PRESS - and - IRISH PRINT UNION |
Appeal by both parties against Rights Commissioner's Recommendation No. ST5/95.
Recommendation:
Having considered all of the issues raised by the parties, and
given the financial constraints which currently exist, it is the
view of the Court that the Recommendation of the Rights
Commissioner should be upheld.
Accordingly, the Court rejects the appeals by the Union and the
Company.
Division: Mr McGrath Mr Pierce Mr Walsh
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD95493 APPEAL DECISION NO. AD7895
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 13(9), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969
PARTIES:
CITYVIEW PRESS
AND
IRISH PRINT UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Appeal by both parties against Rights Commissioner's
Recommendation No. ST5/95.
BACKGROUND:
2. The dispute concerns four workers who have been employed by
the Company for terms ranging from three to fourteen years.
In 1994 because of a significant reduction in business the
Company declared the four workers redundant. If offered the
workers their statutory redundancy entitlements. The Union
claimed additional payments. Management rejected the claim.
The dispute was referred to a Rights Commissioner for
investigation and recommendation. The Rights Commissioner
investigated the dispute on the 18th July, 1995. In his
findings the Right's Commissioner stated:-
"The Company did make an offer of one week's additional
pay at severance provided they dropped their case. This
was rejected by the claimants at the time. The Company
now expects me to accept that I may not reinstate this
offer ....... I do not accept the probity of such an
attitude by the employer in this case."
On the 19th July, 1995 the Rights Commissioner issued his
recommendation as follows:-
"The cost of the week offered to the claimants in the
first instance was of the order of £290 X 4 = £1,160. I
feel justified in recommending that this be rounded up
to £2K and that it be shared proportionately among the
claimant based on their respective years of service with
the Company. If the Company cannot afford to meet such
a modest settlement for these men with 38 years combined
service they really should not be in business."
Subsequently both parties appealed the Rights Commissioners
Recommendation to the Labour Court under section 13(9) of
the Industrial Relations Act, 1969. The Court heard the
appeal on the 9th October, 1995.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Rights Commissioner's award is insufficient given
the length of service of the claimants and the fact that
the Company continues to trade. The offer falls far
short of the norms obtaining in the industry. There is
no reason why a Company which continues to trade should
dispense with staff at minimal cost.
2. Over the years there have been settlements in the
industry of up to £1,000 per year of service. The most
recent award, early in 1995, amounted to over 4 weeks'
pay per year of service. The Company concerned was
closing a department but remaining in business.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Company was forced to make the redundancies because
it lost a considerable printing contract for a weekly
publication. The loss of more than 50% of the Company
turnover meant considerable cutbacks. There was no
scope for redeployment.
2. The Company is presently experiencing very severe cash
flow problems. It has been incurring significant losses
since the beginning of 1995 and its financial position
is precarious (details supplied to the Court). The
Company cannot afford to make ex-gratia payments to the
claimants.
DECISION:
Having considered all of the issues raised by the parties, and
given the financial constraints which currently exist, it is the
view of the Court that the Recommendation of the Rights
Commissioner should be upheld.
Accordingly, the Court rejects the appeals by the Union and the
Company.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
22nd November, 1995 Tom McGrath
T.O'D./D.T. _______________
Deputy Chairman