FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : MCCORMICK MACNAUGHTON LTD (REPRESENTED BY IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION) - AND - UNITE THE UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Mr McGee Employer Member: Mr Doherty Worker Member: Mr Nash |
1. Redundancy terms.
BACKGROUND:
2. The McCormick MacNaughton Group is made up of a number of companies. McCormick MacNaughton Limited is the sole distributor of Caterpillar Construction Equipment, Marine and Power Generation products for Ireland.
The downturn in the Construction industry has impacted considerably on the Company's sales. The Company recorded a loss in 2008 and has revised down the estimated loss for 2009.
In 2008 a dispute concerning redundancy terms was referred to the Labour Court and in LCR 19305 the Court recommended that the redundancy terms should be two weeks per year of service with no cap plus statutory payments. The Company applied the recommendation terms to the redundancy.
The case before the Court relates to redundancy terms on offer to 5 employees being made redundant due to a decision by Management to cease workshop operations at the Naas Road facility. The redundancy package proposed by Management is one weeks' pay per year of service plus statutory redundancy. The Union want the terms of LCR 19305 to be applied to them as that is what all others got.
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 24th August, 2009, in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 16th September, 2009.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1.The Union is seeking the terms of LCR 19305 to be applied to its members as that is what all others got on redundancy, that is statutory redundancy plus two weeks per year of service.
2.The document of changed terms accepted in February 2009 did not mention that the ex-gratia payment would be reduced to one week per year of service.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1.The Company maintains that it is in a dire financial position and as such are not in a position to honour the previous Labour Court recommendation LCR 19305.
2. The Company maintains that it simply cannot afford the costs involved in redundancy programmes that are essential to secure its long term sustainability.The Company is prepared to offer a payment of one weeks pay per year of service on top of the statutory element.
RECOMMENDATION:
Having considered the submissions made by the parties, the Court confirms that the terms as agreed in LCR 19305 should be paid on this occasion to these workers, and so recommends.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Raymond McGee
24th September, 2009______________________
MG.Deputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Madelon Geoghegan, Court Secretary.