FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : DUBARRY SHOES - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Flood Employer Member: Mr Keogh Worker Member: Ms Ni Mhurchu |
1. Hearing arising from LCR15492.
BACKGROUND:
2. LCR15492 took place on the 18th of March, 1997. The Court recommended that the parties should discuss the issues further and, if necessary, return to the Court with any issue still outstanding. All of the issues were agreed between the parties except for severance payment for long term illness which is the subject of this Court hearing.
There were initially four workers involved in the claim but there is now only one. Of the other three, one was made redundant, one resigned and life insurance is on offer to the third. According to the Union, the Company maintains that the fourth worker is not entitled to any payment. The Union also wanted the issue of future payments for long term illness to be considered, plus added years where a person is obliged to retire on grounds of ill health.
The parties agreed to return to the Court and a hearing took place on the 24th of September, 1997.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Company has a moral responsibility to workers with long service who, through no fault of their own, find themselves in a situation of ill health which threatens their livelihood. The worker concerned has given long and loyal service to the Company. The Company is prepared, in the case of redundancy, to make some payments towards a worker and should also be prepared to compensate someone who, through long terms illness, will lose their job. The Company could amend its present pension scheme to provide for added years to assist workers facing job losses through no fault of their own.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Company does care for its workers, especially those with long term service. It has introduced a pension scheme in the last number of years which will provide for employees in the future. The Company has also paid large sums of money in PRSI payments to enable people in long term illness situations to be paid social welfare payments. The worker concerned could apply for social welfare payments.
2. The Company is in a depressed industry and cannot afford to pay long term illness severance payments. Other larger companies in the industry do not make such payments. If the Company did introduce these payments there is a danger that the system could be abused.
RECOMMENDATION:
In relation to the one individual case outstanding from the original four, the Court recommends that the Company pay insurance cover for death-in-service up to 65 years of age for the individual as a solution to this case. As part of this arrangement, the individual will be on compassionate leave until 65.
On the wider issue, the Court recommends that as situations arise where an employee's employment is being discontinued due to long term illness, each case should be discussed on its merits.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Finbarr Flood
6th October, 1997______________________
C.O'N./D.T.Deputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Ciaran O'Neill, Court Secretary.