FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : PIERSE CONTRACTING LTD (REPRESENTED BY CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY FEDERATION) - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Ms Jenkinson Employer Member: Mr Murphy Worker Member: Mr O'Neill |
1. Redundancy.
BACKGROUND:
2. Pierse Contracting are part of the Birmayne Group and in January 2008 they announced that they were seeking redundancies in all work categories due to the downturn in building activity.
The Union contends that what is actually happening is that the Company wishes to replace all it's workforce with agency workers/sub-contractors and rejects the need for any redundancies completely.
The dispute could not be resolved at local level and was the subject of a Conciliation Conference under the auspices of the Labour Relations Commission. As agreement was not reached, the dispute was referred to the Labour Court on the 8th April, 2008.
A Labour Court hearing took place on the 24th April, 2008.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Company should withdraw the threat of redundancies and explore other avenues in order to protect the jobs in question, including short-term or temporary lay-offs.
2. In the event of the need for a genuine redundancy situation, the length of service and seniority should be part of the criteria used as part of the selection process across all sites and the option for voluntary offers for redundancy to be accepted.
3.If being made redundant, workers should be paid an enhanced redundancy package as awarded to other Construction Workers in other comparable companies.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Company is prepared to offer statutory redundancy which is the norm in the business and what appeared to be enhanced packages in the past were merely 'tax-efficiencies' which were applied to their payments.
2. Approximately 62 Workers of various trades were made redundant over the past six months and no objections were raised by the Unions involved with regard to either the selection procedures or statutory payments.
3.To pay enhanced redundancy terms would place an additional financial burden on the Company both now and into the future and it could also have a serious knock-on effect on the Construction Industry generally.
RECOMMENDATION:
Having considered the written and oral submissions of the parties, the Court recommends that the Company's offer made at the Construction Industry Disputes Tribunal in an effort to minimise the effects of the forthcoming redundancies should be accepted. With regard to the specific claim regarding an enhanced redundancy package, the Court does not recommend concession of the claim.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Caroline Jenkinson
2nd May, 2008______________________
JFDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to John Foley, Court Secretary.