FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : CAHILL MAY ROBERTS - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Flood Employer Member: Mr Pierce Worker Member: Mr O'Neill |
1. Hearing arising from LCR15726.
BACKGROUND:
2. In December, 1997 the Labour Court issued LCR15726 in which it recommended on a number of issues in respect of the Company's rationalisation/restructuring plan. In relation to redundancy terms the Court recommended as follows:-
"Redundancy terms to be 5 weeks' pay per year of service plus statutory entitlements subject to a maximum of £40,000.''
The recommendation was accepted by both parties.
The Company over the years has made individual agreements with a number of employees and their Trade Unions to reduce their working hours. Under the agreement each employee was considered redundant, due to the change from full time to part time working and therefore paid their full statutory entitlement. In addition, they received a partial payment of monies under the Company's severance scheme. The balance of monies to be paid in the event of full redundancy in the future plus any further accrued benefit due with increased service.
The dispute before the Court concerns the Union's claim on behalf of 2 workers who entered into an agreement with the Company to change from full time to part time working. They received payment in accordance with the conditions outlined above on the basis of 4 weeks' pay per year of service. One of the workers who was employed at the Company's Cavan depot was made redundant on the 13th of August, 1998. The second worker who is based in Sligo has applied for voluntary redundancy. The Union claims that the workers concerned are entitled to redundancy terms based on 5 weeks pay per year of service in line with LCR15726 for the full period of their employment. The Company has offered 5 weeks' pay per year of service from the date of their respective agreements. Local level discussions failed to resolve the issue and the matter was referred back to the Labour Court in July, 1998 under Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 28th of September, 1998.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Union considers that LCR15726 supersedes the individual agreements and the workers should be paid on the basis of 5 weeks' pay per year of service.
2. The worker employed in Cavan entered into an agreement on the 6th of November, 1996 based on an expectation of employment into the future. Six days later Company representatives visited Cavan to announce details of the rationalisation/restructuring plan.
3. The Company is attempting to deprive the workers concerned of their full redundancy entitlements by way of sharp practice. Its approach cannot be justified in circumstances where huge sums of money have been invested in its infrastructure and the substantial saving accruing to the Company as a result of the restructuring.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Company has through agreement, made arrangements with some employees over a number of years reducing their working hours.
2. The Company's position is that the Labour Court, in the recommendation, amended the Company offer of redundancy under the restructuring plan; it did not change previous individual agreements already implemented.
3. If the recommendation was applied to all previous individual agreements, the Company would be placed in a very difficult position.
4. The Company accepts that the 2 cases before the Court are similar but individual. It believes that there may be up to 6 similar cases in the Company at other locations.
5. The balance of monies due to each employee was guaranteed. A guaranteed amount for each individual. A guarantee which other employees did not have.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court having considered the written and oral submissions made by the parties, is satisfied that the deal entered into in both these cases was for statutory redundancy and a commitment in the event of a further redundancy.
The commitment given in relation to any further redundancy was for an agreed figure to be paid and it is clear that had a lower package been proposed now it would not have been acceptable. Conversely the Court can not recommend that the improved conditions should apply.
However, the Court does recommend that the monies held by the Company as part of this agreement should be increased by the Consumer Price Index (CPI) for the period it was held by the Company.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Finbarr Flood
8th October, 1998______________________
F.B/U.S.Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Fran Brennan, Court Secretary.