LCR22671

1. Failure to agree redundancy terms.


BACKGROUND:

2. UNION'S ARGUMENTS:

(i) The Union claims that the redundancy terms contained in the parties’ collective agreement should be implemented for current redundancies.

(ii) The Union contends that any difficulty in meeting the cost of the claim should be addressed by the parent company as has happened in the past.

(ii) The Company contends that any requirement to pay the redundancy terms which have been paid in the past would have a very serious and unsustainable affect on the company.

This parties’ dispute has been the subject of two previous recommendations of the Court – LCR22404 & LCR22482.

RECOMMENDATION:

The Court has given very careful consideration to the written and oral submissions of the parties.

The Court convened three hearings and has previously issued two Recommendations (LCR22404 and LCR22482) to the parties in an effort to advance the resolution of the matters in dispute. The dispute before the Court relates to an existing and acknowledged collective agreement which provides for payment of 6 weeks’ pay per year of service with no “cap” in the event of redundancy.

In 2021 the employer implemented the redundancy of more than 50 people. On that occasion the redundancy payments made to the redundant workers was less than the terms set out in the existing collective agreement.

The employer has held the position that it is not in a financial position to fund redundancy payments at the level set out in the collective agreement. The Trade Union has consistently disputed that assertion.

Following an earlier Recommendation, a financial expert was engaged to prepare a report setting out a view as to the capacity of the employer and the Rehab Group to support payment of redundancy payments at the level contained in the existing collective agreement. The expert ultimately concluded that

• “the Rehab Group does have financial options that could be explored to meet this claim, therefore, inability to meet this claim does not appear to have been demonstrated”.

The Court, in the interest of good industrial relations, has always taken the view that collective agreements should be respected by the parties to such an agreement unless and until such an agreement is amended by agreement or replaced by another agreement.

In this case the employer asserts that the cost of concession of the Trade Union claim would exceed the cost of the offered settlement by €900,000. The employer has submitted that it has no means or potential to meet this cost. The Trade Union does not accept this assertion.

The Court has made every attempt to assist the parties to find a shared understanding of the facts relevant to the dispute. Ultimately however, the Court is faced with a situation where the employer does not accept the findings of the financial expert and submits that it has no financial or practical capacity to meet the cost of the Trade Union Claim. The Trade Union accepts the report of the financial expert and submits that the employer can, with the support of the Group, meet the cost of the claim.

The Court notes the positions of the parties and the report of the financial expert chosen to establish the relevant facts. The Court can find no clear and undisputed basis not to uphold the parties’ existing collective agreement and consequently recommends that it be respected until it is amended or terminated by agreement or replaced by a successor agreement.

The Court so recommends.

	Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
	Kevin Foley
SL	______________________
09 November 2022	Chairman