FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : 4 HOME SUPERSTORES - AND - SERVICES AND INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION AND MANDATE DIVISION : Chairman: Mr McGee Employer Member: Mr Murphy Worker Member: Mr O'Neill |
1. Redundancy
BACKGROUND:
2. The issue before the Court concerns the closure of three stores by the Company resulting in the redundancy of a number of workers. The Company operates 10 different stores. In July/August 2009, the Company announced that it would be closing three of its stores and the possible transfer of ownership of the seven remaining stores to another company. The workers in the three stores concerned were notified of their redundancy and that statutory redundancy only would be paid to them. The Unions contend that the store closure and redundancy process was not carried out in line with long standing procedural agreements between the parties and the legislative requirements. The Union is seeking that the workers concerned must be given the opportunity to retain their employment as part of one of the seven transferred stores.
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 1st September, 2009 in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 10th September, 2009.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1 Management set out to exclude the workers and Unions from participating in any decision making process as to the future of the Company. The Company were unwilling to contemplate a situation whereby the staff in the stores concerned may avail of the opportunity to maintain their employment.
2 The Unions and the Company have always conducted business pertaining to staff in a collective or individual basis in accordance with the procedural agreements between the parties. The Company's actions are a clear breach of this agreement. The Unions are not convinced that the Company's claim of inability to pay has any validity.
3 An agreed severance package and termination terms already exist and were carried forward as part of the transfer of undertakings from the stores previous company.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1 The Company is not in a position to fund an enhanced redundancy claim from the Unions due to the downturn in its retail business.
2 The Company has offered to have its financial information made available to the Unions representatives.
4 A number of non-viable stores around the country had already been closed when this current dispute arose. Workers at the stores concerned were notified of impending closure. The Unions were also contacted and the parties engaged in discussions under the auspices of the Labour Relations Commission.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court having considered all of the material placed before it by the parties and noting the commitments made in 2006, recommends that the pre-existing package on severance terms, dated 30th October 2003, should apply in the case of the workers in the 3 named stores who are being made redundant by the Company.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Raymond McGee
25th September, 2009______________________
DNDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to David P Noonan, Court Secretary.