FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 20(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : ASAHI IRELAND LIMITED (REPRESENTED BY THE IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION) - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Flood Employer Member: Mr McHenry Worker Member: Mr Rorke |
1. Severance payment.
BACKGROUND:
2. In May, 1997, Asahi Ireland Limited announced that its parent company in Japan had decided to withdraw from its operation in Ireland. There were proposals by local management for a buy-out and, the Union claims, commitment for financial support from the parent company in Japan with a view to setting up a replacement company for the Asahi plant. However, following a secret ballot, these proposals were rejected by the workers. The Japanese parent company withdrew its financial support which led to discussions on redundancy for all workers.
Following a number of meetings at the Labour Relations Commission, a set of proposals emerged on the 25th of September, 1997, which included severance payment for those with less than 2 years' service. Payment for those who worked 0-52 weeks was £850. The dispute concerns one worker, who commenced employment on the 20th of October, 1996, and finished on the 5th of September, 1997, but received no severance payment.
The Union referred the case to the Labour Court on the 13th of March, 1998, in accordance with Section 20(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 11th of August, 1998, in Castlebar. The worker agreed to be bound by the Court's recommendation. The Company did not attend the hearing but wrote to the Court outlining its view as follows:- The Company agreed to make an ex-gratia payment to workers with less than 2 years' service on the condition that those workers remained with the Company until the final production date. For those who wished to leave earlier, the Company was prepared, without commitment, to look at their applications on a case by case basis. The worker informed her manager that she would be leaving on the 5th of September and was told that, as the final closure date was the 5th of December, 1997, she was not entitled to any severance payment. The worker stated that it did not matter as she was starting a FAS course. A number of other employees who left subsequent to the worker received no payment.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Industrial Relations Officer's (IRO) proposals of the 25th of September were conveyed by letter on the 26th of September to the parties and accepted. A separate letter from the IRO to IBEC on 26th of September stated that the worker's case would be addressed at a conciliation conference during the week prior to closure. The Union felt that there would be a positive outcome for the worker. If the Company did not intend paying the worker the severance payment, it should have indicated this at the conciliation conference on the 25th of September.
2. The worker did not inform her manager that it did not matter if she received an ex-gratia payment. Five workers who left after the 25th of September agreement received no payment but did not really expect to. The Union accepts this and will not pursue the matter. The case of the worker concerned, however, is a separate matter. The cost to the Company would be minimal.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Company was not represented at the hearing, but a statement was submitted to the Court on its behalf.
Given the non-representation of the Company, the Court had no opportunity to clarify points arising as a result of the hearing.
Based on the information before it, the Court is satisfied that, while the overall agreement was that employees with less than two years' service leaving before cessation of production would not get the ex-gratia payment, a commitment was given in relation to this employee at the final negotiations.
The Court is surprised that the Company did not attend a conciliation conference as agreed per the IRO letter of 26th of September, 1997.
Having considered all the information before it, the Court recommends that this employee be paid the sum of £850 as per terms of severance.
The Court notes the Union statement that no other employee has a similar claim.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Finbarr Flood
2nd September, 1998______________________
C.O'N./D.T.Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Ciaran O'Neill, Court Secretary.