INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2004
SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990
- AND -
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
Chairman: Mr Duffy
Employer Member: Mr Doherty
Worker Member: Mr Nash
1. Enhanced severance package.
2. The Company manufactures shoes at its plant in Ballinasloe, Co Galway. Over the past 4 years a policy of outsourcing has been successfully pursued and consequently only 15% of the product is now manufactured at the plant. The Company has now decided to transfer the remaining production elements of the operation overseas and has engaged in extensive negotiations with the Union on a redundancy package.
Following a number of conciliation conferences under the auspices of the Labour Relations Commission the Company made a final offer which was rejected by the Union. . The Company withdrew the offer following the failure to reach agreement.
As agreement could not be reached, the dispute was referred to the Labour Court on the 27th October, 2004, in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 1st December, 2004.
3. 1. The Unions' members are seeking a fair and reasonable severance package and their expectations are based on other recent redundancy settlements in the town.
2. The Company can afford the cost of the enhanced redundancy package and the costs associated with the remaining issues in dispute.
3. The Company showed total disregard for the Union members in issuing redundancy notice in advance of any discussion with this Union.
4. 1. The Company believed that they had negotiated a redundancy package for all future redundancies following acceptance of proposals in March 2004.
2. An earlier pay pause negotiated and agreed helped the Company to survive and outlive other similar companies by 6/7 years.
3. The Company has withdrawn its final offer as a result of the Union failing to agree all elements of it.
Having regard to all the circumstances of this case and in order to bring about an amicable settlement of this dispute the Court recommends that the proposals which were forwarded by the IRO under cover of her letter of the 20th October 2004 be reinstated by the Company. This proposal should also be modified so as to concede the Union's claim in respect of PPF.
The Court so recommends.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
13th December, 2004______________________
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Madelon Geoghegan, Court Secretary.