FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : ELEMENT 6 - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION TECHNICAL, ENGINEERING AND ELECTRICAL UNION UNITE DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Duffy Employer Member: Mr Doherty Worker Member: Ms Ni Mhurchu |
1. Redundancy and Restructuring Package
BACKGROUND:
2. The matter came before the Court on 17th September 2009 when the only issue referred by the parties was the level of compensation which should apply to those being made redundant.
It became apparent to the Court that a number of other issues relating to the terms on which a number of jobs could be preserved at the Company’s plant where also in contention but were not before the Court. The Court also formed the view that the gap in the position of the parties at that time was such that no recommendation which the Court might then make would advance the final resolution of the dispute.
The Court adjourned the matter to 29th September 2009 and requested the assistance of ICTU and IBEC in working with the parties in further discussions. The object of this process was to try and reach agreement on all outstanding issues, and in the absence of final agreement, to report to the Court on the progress made in the facilitated discussions so as to assist it in formulating a recommendation aimed at final agreement on all outstanding issues.
Mr Fergus Whelan of ICTU and Mr Tim O’Connell of IBEC were appointed as facilitators. They met with the parties in intensive discussions on all issues over four days. Final agreement was not reached and the facilitators prepared and presented a comprehensive report to the Court. The Court wishes to express its appreciation of the work undertaken by the facilitators which has greatly assisted it in understanding the complexity of the issues involved in the dispute and the rationale of both sides in their approach to those issues.
The recommendations which follow are designed to bring about full and final settlement of all issues involved in this dispute and should be regarded as a composite package of measures intended to achieve that objective.
RECOMMENDATION:
In this Recommendation the Court has used as its reference point a document prepared by the facilitators, and presented to the parties headed “Draft Heads of Agreement” dated 23rd September 2009. The Court recommends that the terms set out in that document should be accepted subject to the modifications which follow: -
Point 5
The word “thereafter” at the end of the final sentence of this Point should be deleted.
Point 7
The following sentence should be inserted at the end of this point “Discussions on this matter should continue up to but not beyond the end of October 2009 and if agreement is not reached at that time outstanding matters should be referred back to the Court, or other agreed third party for final adjudication.
Point 10
The facilitators put the following proposal to the Trade Union side: -
a) Subject to the terms outlined in the Sustainability Plan, the “unsocial hours” period will be increased by one hour to apply between the hours of 9pm and 7am and the premium to be paid will increase to 20%
c) Management have given assurances to the facilitators that this restructuring of the element of the remuneration package is necessary to meet the requirement for speed, quality and service for the factory in the future. The Union have acknowledged that these requirements are seen as a vital business objective.
d) Management have further assured the facilitators that the revised shift arrangements and associated premium structure, along with the KPI Bonus Scheme, are designed to avoid an erosion of overall take-home pay
e) The effect of the measure will be the subject of a review carried out jointly with an agreed chairman six months after the implementation of the agreement.
Agreement was not reached on this proposal. The Court has carefully considered the submissions made by the parties on this issue. In all the circumstances of the case the Court recommends that this proposal, as put by the facilitators, should be accepted. The Court makes this recommendation having regard to the particular circumstances pertaining in this employment and it is not intended to have any broader application. Accordingly it should not be relied upon or quoted as a precedent in any other circumstances.
Point 11
The final sentence in this Point should be amended to read “In the event that agreement cannot be reached on the implementation of the system, within six weeks, the matter can be referred back to the Court for recommendation."
Point 12
This Point should be amended to read “the unions accept that all staff will move to monthly pay and that the mid-month payment will continue to operate."
Point 13
The following should sentence should be inserted at the end of this Point “ a compensatory payment of €500 should apply to those remaining in employment who are affected by the elimination of these allowances."
Redundancy Compensation
The Court Recommends that the following compensatory package apply to those made redundant: -
a) Statutory entitlements
c) Due to the financial circumstances of the Company, one-third of this ex-gratia package should be deferred until February 2010.
Finally, having regard to the urgency surrounding the matters covered, the Court would urge the parties to take such steps as are necessary to expedite the process for making a decision on this Recommendation
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Duffy
29th September 2009______________________
AHChairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Andrew Heavey, Court Secretary.