Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD95429 Case Number: LCR15110 Section / Act: S20(1) Parties: ROYAL LIFE INSURANCE LIMITED (Represented by THE IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS CONFEDERATION) - and - MANUFACTURING SCIENCE FINANCE |
Application Of Agreements.
Recommendation:
The Court having considered all the information before it finds
that the Company did honour the terms of the S.E.E.A. and
accordingly rejects the Union's claim.
Division: Mr Flood Mr McHenry Mr Walsh
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD95429 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR15110
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 20(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969
PARTIES:
ROYAL LIFE INSURANCE LIMITED
(REPRESENTED BY THE IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS CONFEDERATION)
AND
MANUFACTURING SCIENCE FINANCE
SUBJECT:
1. Application Of Agreements.
BACKGROUND:
2. Royal Life Insurance Ltd. is an independent subsidiary of
Royal Life Holdings Ltd. transacting life and pensions
business in the U.K. and the home market.
In June, 1994 the Company decided to cease transacting new
business with effect from 1st July, 1994. As a result of
this decision the jobs of 5 workers responsible for the sales
and administration of new business became redundant.
A letter confirming this decision was given to each member of
the staff on 15th June, 1994. The Company's position is that
this letter triggered the application of the Company's
Security of Employment and Earnings Agreement (S.E.E.A.)
(details supplied to the Court) which is part of the workers'
terms and conditions of employment.
Negotiations took place following which 3 workers (over 50
years of age) accepted early retirement terms. Agreement was
not reached in relation to the other 2 workers (under 50
years of age).
The dispute before the Court concerns the Union's claim on
behalf of 1 worker that the Company failed to honour the
terms of the S.E.E.A. It did not make any reasonable attempt
to offer the worker concerned a suitable alternative
position. The Company rejects the Claim.
The application of S.E.E.A. to the worker is as follows:-
Twelve months warning of possible redundancy was given on
15th June, 1994.
Notice of termination of contract was served on 15th June,
1995.
Contract termination date confirmed as 14th June, 1998.
The worker referred the dispute to the Labour Court on 24th
July, 1995 under Section 20(1) of the Industrial Relations
Act, 1969. Labour Court hearings took place on 19th
December, 1995 and 12th February, 1996.
At the hearing on 19th December, 1995 the Court considered
the question raised by the Union regarding the position of
Royal Insurance (U.K.) Ltd. in the worker's claim. An
invitation to attend a conciliation conference at the Labour
Relations Commission was declined by Royal Insurance (U.K.)
Ltd. as the Company did not regard itself as a party to the
dispute.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The worker's date of birth is 11th September, 1945. If
the 12 months 'notice of notice' period did not start
until on or after 11th September, 1994 then it did not
expire until after the worker's 50th birthday and he
should be entitled to early retirement benefits,
including enhanced pension.
2. Under Section (iii), 12(b) and 14(i)& (ii)of the
S.E.E.A., the question of suitable alternative
employment is dealt with. The Company has not made any
reasonable attempt to honour the agreement and offer the
worker an alternative position. Suitable positions were
available and workers who made application for voluntary
redundancy were rejected.
3. The worker is now over 50 years of age and the Company
has continually refused to offer him the early
retirement terms available to staff over 50 years of
age. These terms were made available to other members
of staff in late 1995.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. S.E.E.A. is a pre-negotiated redundancy agreement. Both
parties are entitled to rely upon its terms to resolve
job losses through redundancy. As such there is no
obligation on either party to either offer or accept
voluntary severance package terms. Terms are offered
through negotiation as a suitable alternative, which
occurred on this occasion. If the parties cannot agree
a severance package then no terms are provided. In such
circumstances the Company is required to honour S.E.E.A.
extended contractual notice entitlements only and has
done so.
2. A very attractive package of voluntary severance terms
was negotiated and agreed with the Union as an
alternative to the contractual solution of extended
notice under S.E.E.A. They were offered to the worker
who had the opportunity to choose either the terms or to
remain in employment during the extended S.E.E.A. notice
periods.
3. The Company did all that could be reasonably expected to
identify redeployment opportunities. There is no
entitlement under S.E.E.A. or any other agreement to
automatic transfer/appointment to another job.
4. The application of the Security of Employment and
Earnings Agreement to the worker concerned is equal to 4 years
continued pay and benefits.
5. The voluntary severance terms are no longer available to
the worker.
6. The original demands and expectations held by the Union
for improvements in terms were excessive. It was made
clear that the Company would never meet its expectations
to provide excessively high cost additional severance
terms for those below 50 years of age, at the time their
employment ceased. Relevant in concluding that it could
not meet such an expectation is the wider ramifications
provision of immediate pensions for staff under 50 years
of age would have elsewhere in the organisation.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court having considered all the information before it finds
that the Company did honour the terms of the S.E.E.A. and
accordingly rejects the Union's claim.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
15th March, 1996 Finbarr Flood
F.B./S.G. _______________
Deputy Chairman
Note
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to
Mr. Fran Brennan, Court Secretary.