Up Arrow
 
 
Question Icon
 

Select an option from the dropdown list and press GO

 
Question Icon
 

Select an option from the dropdown list and then press GO

 
 
 

2002

Information Icon Water Mark
Up Arrow

Add to Binder allows you to add Workplace Relations content to your personal binder for viewing or printing later.

Binder icon image Binder

To access your binder, click the Binder link at the top of the page.

 
 

LCR17314

FULL RECOMMENDATION

CD/02/528
RECOMMENDATIONNO.LCR17314
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2001
SECTION 20(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969



PARTIES :
SHERIDAN PRECAST LTD

- AND -

A WORKER
(REPRESENTED BY SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION)


DIVISION :

Chairman: Mr Duffy
Employer Member: Mr Carberry
Worker Member: Ms Ni Mhurchu
SUBJECT:
1. Redundancy terms.


BACKGROUND:

2. The Company operated as a builders providers. The worker commenced employment with the Company in 1992 as a sales assistant/storeman. The Union claims that the worker was informed on the 28th June 2002 that the Company was closing down. His employment was terminated on the 19th July, 2002. The Union is seeking 6 weeks pay per year of service plus statutory entitlements and arrears of holiday pay. It is also seeking payment in lieu of notice.

The Company rejected the Union's claim. It stated that it had no option but to stop trading because it was no longer a viable operation.


The Union referred the dispute to the Labour Court under Section 20(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969, and agreed to be bound by the Court's recommendation.

The Court investigated the dispute on the 4th November, 2002.


UNION'S ARGUMENTS:

3. 1. The worker has given ten years of loyal service to the Company and deserves an enhanced redundancy package.

2. The Union's claim for 6 weeks pay per year of service is justifiable in that it falls within the scope of redundancy deals within the building industry over the past number of years.

3. The Company has already made an offer in excess of the statutory entitlement through a local intermediary.

4. Thousands of workers have recently marched in support of those workers looking for fair redundancy settlements.

5. The Union's claim is fair and just. All the Union wants is a redundancy settlement in line with the industry norm.


COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:

4. 1. The Company had no option but to cease trading. It was incurring losses which could not be sustained.

2. The worker concerned was the only non-family member employed by the Company which had been going downhill over the last couple of years.

3. The Company is not in financial position to meet the Union's redundancy claim. It can only pay statutory entitlements based on the worker's ten years service.





RECOMMENDATION:

Having considered the submissions of the parties the Court recommends that the Company offer and the Union accepts a total redundancy payment equal to four weeks pay per year of service, inclusive of statutory entitlements.

The Court notes that the Union is also claiming for arrears of holiday pay and for payment in lieu of notice. The employer acknowledged that only three weeks notice was given whereas four weeks was due. The Court recommends that the additional week's pay should now be paid.

The Court further recommends that any arrears of holiday pay due to the worker should also be paid. If there is a dispute between the parties on the amount, if any, due by way of holiday pay the dispute should be resolved through the procedures provided by the Organisation of Working Time Act 1997.





Signed on behalf of the Labour Court



Kevin Duffy
11th November, 2002______________________
LW/MB.Deputy Chairman



NOTE

Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Larry Wisely, Court Secretary.




 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

Share this page

 
logo-sml
Links|About the Reform Programme|Accessibility|Privacy Policy|Disclaimer|Sitemap

Registered Address: Department of Business, Enterprise and Innovation, O'Brien Road, Carlow