INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2004
SECTION 20(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969
PJ CARROLL &CO LTD
- AND -
(REPRESENTED BY SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION)
Chairman: Mr McGee
Employer Member: Mr Murphy
Worker Member: Mr Nash
1. Issue for enhanced redundancy terms arising out of a Voluntary Severance Agreement concluded in 1998.
2. The case before the Court concerns a dispute between the Company and the Union regarding the application of redundancy terms to its two former employees of the Company.
The Union is claiming that the terms of a previous Labour Court Recommendation (LCR 15876) be applied to its two members, enhancing their respective redundancy packages accordingly.
The Company rejects the claim on the basis that the two workers had left the Company prior to the issue of LCR 15876.
The Recommendation which issued in May, 1998, stated the following:-
"Employees not covered by L.I.F.O. and who are made compulsorily redundant should be offered an enhanced package from £3,000 to £8,000 lump sum to facilitate re-training".
On the 30th of June, 2005, the Union referred the issue to the Labour Court in accordance with Section 20(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 27th of September, 2005. The Union agreed to be bound by the Court's Recommendation.
3. 1. At the time of the redundancies there was a case brought by another Union on behalf of its members also affected by the redundancies. It was agreed between the parties at the time that the outcome of that claim would be applied to the two claimants in this case also. The other claim was subsequently privately settled. The agreed settlement should now be applied to the two claimants in this case.
2. The Union has made several attempts to have this matter dealt with in the appropriate way. It is unacceptable that the Company reneges on an express commitment given to the Union and the two workers in May, 2000.
4. 1. The agreement concluded in respect of the other Union member was reached privately and is, therefore, irrelevant to this case.
2. The contents of LCR 15876 do not apply in this case as the two workers in question accepted their redundancy terms at the time.
3. Both Claimants were offered alternative employment within the Company prior to the redundancies but refused the offers.
4. Concession of the claim would have a detrimental effect on the business which has already announced the closure of its plant in Dundalk.
Following consideration of the submissions of the parties and the very lengthy history of the case, the Court recommends that, in all the circumstances, the Union's claim should be conceded and the sum of €6,350 paid to each of the Claimants.
It is noted by all sides that this settlement is unique to this case and has no bearing on any subsequent or current situation in the Company.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
19th October, 2005______________________
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Andrew Heavey, Court Secretary.