INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2001
SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990
(REPRESENTED BY IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION)
- AND -
AMALGAMATED ENGINEERING AND ELECTRICAL UNION
TECHNICAL, ENGINEERING AND ELECTRICAL UNION
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
Chairman: Mr Flood
Employer Member: Mr Keogh
Worker Member: Ms Ni Mhurchu
1. Voluntary redundancy terms.
2. The Company is engaged in general engineering and is located in Wexford. It currently employs 89 staff. It is a wholly owned subsidiary of Waterford Stanley Limited and operates as a separate business. The Company is trading at a loss for the last five years. It is now seeking 23 voluntary redundancies. The redundancy terms on offer are two weeks' pay per year of service inclusive of the statutory entitlement.
The dispute before the Court concerns a claim by the Unions for redundancy payments similar to those paid at Waterford Stanley Limited which were four weeks' pay per year of service plus statutory entitlement.
The Company states it cannot afford the terms paid in Waterford Stanley Limited.
The dispute could not be resolved and was the subject of a conciliation conference under the auspices of the Labour Relations Commission held on the 20th of August, 2001. As agreement was not reached, the dispute was referred to the Labour Court on the 22nd of August, 2001, in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 3rd of October, 2001, the earliest date suitable to the parties.
3. 1. The Union officials, shop stewards and workers concerned made it clear to the Company that the redundancy terms agreed for Waterford Stanley Limited had to apply to them.
2. There is uniformity between the Companies regarding conditions of employment. Both Companies have the same Personnel Manager.
3. The workers should receive four weeks' pay per year of service plus statutory entitlement.
4. 1. The Company has a separate business structure to Waterford Stanley Limited. It is independent in its own right. It has its own board of directors and management.
2. The terms on offer are in line with those paid in engineering companies with similar trading difficulties.
3. The Company cannot afford to pay any more than the current offer of two weeks' pay per year of service inclusive of statutory entitlement.
The court having considered the written and oral submissions made by the parties does not recommend concession of the Union claim for redundancy payments similar to those paid in Waterford Stanley. The Court is not satisfied that a linkage for redundancy payments exists.
The Court recommends that redundancy payments of 3 weeks' pay per year of service, including statutory payments, should be paid in cases of redundancy.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
19th October, 2001______________________
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Gerardine Buckley, Court Secretary.