INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2004
SECTION 20(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969
TYRONE PRODUCTIONS LIMITED
(REPRESENTED BY IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION)
- AND -
(REPRESENTED BY KEN STAFFORD, MANAGEMENT CONSULTANCY SERVICES)
Chairman: Mr McGee
Employer Member: Mr Doherty
Worker Member: Mr O'Neill
1. Redundancy arrangements.
2. The dispute concerns a worker who commenced employment on the 1st January, 1995 as a production manager. The worker (along with a number of other employees) was declared redundant with effect from 30th July, 2004. Staff were notified of the redundancies on the 15th April, 2004. The Company made the following redundancy offer to workers:
Employees with up to 10 years service: Statutory plus 1 month's salary
Employees with more than 10 years service: Statutory plus 2 month's salary
The Company offered the claimant statutory entitlements plus 2 month's salary as an ex-gratia payment. She rejected the offer and claimed an enhanced redundancy settlement. Management rejected the claim. The worker sought to refer the issue to the Labour Relations Commission. The Company objected to such a referral. On the 14th June, 2004 the claimant referred a complaint to the Labour Court under Section 20 (1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969 and agreed to be bound by the Court's recommendation. A Court hearing was held on the 6th August, 2004.
3. 1. The Company refused to enter into any discussions or negotiations on the proposed redundancy, the method of selection, the possibility of suitable alternative employment, or the amount of the payment that would be made to the claimant.
2. The claimant does not accept that the Company's financial position is such as to preclude it from making a more appropriate offer. The Company did not provide any financial information to support its position.
3. The Company did not seek agreement on the basis for selection, nor was there any precedent that would have governed such selection. Management did not offer any flexibility as to which personnel would be made redundant.
4. The claimant has given nine years dedicated and conscientious service to the Company. She is prepared to accept the redundancy if an appropriate offer is made. Based on previous Labour Court recommendations, and the financial strength of the Company, a recommendation of eight weeks pay per year of service plus statutory entitlements would seem appropriate.
4. 1. The claimant's post was made redundant in accordance with the terms of Section 7 (2) (b) of the Redundancy Payment Acts, 1967-2003. The Company was engaged in a restructuring process resulting in seven posts being made redundant.
2. The Company decision was based on ongoing financial losses and the requirement to rationalise the business.
3. Redundancy selection was based on the skills criteria required for the business going forward. All affected employees were informed personally of the decision of the Company, and again at the meeting of employees.
4. Each position was skill specific and no cross functionality existed. The only positions remaining in the Company, post the restructuring process, were in the area of general administration.
5. There is no history of redundancies within the Company or in the production industry as a sector. No precedent existed in relation to either selection procedures or redundancy packages.
6. The redundancy package offered is as fair and generous as possible in the context of the Company's ongoing financial losses.
7. All other employees made redundant at this time accepted the redundancy package as offered.
The Court, having taken into account the oral and written submissions of the parties and noting the non-voluntary nature of the redundancy, recommends that the total package proposed to the claimant remain at 21 weeks' salary plus eight weeks'ex-gratia but calculated at the claimant's actual weekly rate of €930.58, giving a total severance package ( including statutory redundancy entitlement) of €26,986.92.
The Court also notes the Employer's commitment to offering the claimant first refusal over suitable production work on forthcoming projects.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
2nd September, 2004______________________
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Tom O'Dea, Court Secretary.