INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2001
SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990
PROVINCIAL SECURITY SERVICES LIMITED (PSS)
(REPRESENTED BY IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION)
- AND -
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
Chairman: Ms Jenkinson
Employer Member: Mr Pierce
Worker Member: Ms Ni Mhurchu
1. (I) Redundancy payment (2) Loss of earnings.
2. The Union has submitted a claim on behalf of 28 former Intel based security officers for a redundancy/loss of earnings compensatory package.
It claims that as a result of the Company downgrading its operation at the Intel plant, that it relocated or made redundant 28 security staff.
Management rejected the Union's claim. The dispute was referred to the Labour Relations Commission. A conciliation conference was held on the 16th of January, 2002, but no agreement was reached. The dispute was referred to the Labour Court on
the 28th of January, 2002, under Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. The Court investigated the dispute on the 4th of July, 2002.
3. 1. The Union is seeking redundancy payments for all employees who were made redundant in line with similar payments made to construction workers at the Intel site.
2. Construction workers employed on the Intel site and similarly affected by cut-backs in the Irish operation, received compensation for their loss of employment and earnings.
3. The claim on behalf of the security officers should be funded from the savings resulting from the cost cutting programme at the Intel Site.
4. 1. There is no Company precedent for paying anything other than statutory redundancy payments.
2. The realignment on site and the concurrent reduction in the number of workers, were part of normal and ongoing review with the customer.
3. Concession of the claim would place the Company at a major disadvantage vis-a-vis its competitors.
Loss Of Earnings:
5. 1. Security staff had an expectation of a 20% increase in wages on the Intel site prior to being relocated to other sites.
2. Concession of the claim would compensate the relocated staff for the significant drop in their rate of pay.
3. The Union is asking the Court to rule in its favour and recommend the application of the agreement for construction workers to all the workers covered by this claim.
6. 1. The Company made significant efforts to find alternative employment for the workers concerned.
2. Compensation for loss of earnings is not justified on the basis that the rates of pay are site specific and are not transferable.
Having considered the submissions of the parties the Court does not recommend the claim for an ex- gratia redundancy payment, and does not recommend concession of a compensation award to the claimants where they moved site.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
19th August, 2002______________________
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Larry Wisely, Court Secretary.