INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990
(REPRESENTED BY IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION)
- AND -
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
Chairman: Ms Jenkinson
Employer Member: Ms Doyle
Worker Member: Ms Ni Mhurchu
1. Redundancy Terms
2. This case concerns a dispute between the Company and the Union in relation to enhanced redundancy terms and selection criteria. The Company, as a result of increased competition amongst other factors that have resulted in the loss of several contracts, is now faced with a redundancy situation and are proposing approximately twenty five redundancies commencing this year. The Union is seeking enhanced redundancy terms of 4.5 weeks pay per year of service in addition to statutory entitlements, and that this package should be offered primarily on a voluntary basis to offset the requirement for compulsory redundancies. Management's position is that due to its worsening financial position, it is unable to pay redundancy terms in excess of statutory entitlements.
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 17th May 2010, in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 2nd July 2010.
1.There is a precedent enhanced redundancy package within the Company and the Corporate Group as well as within the region and similar organisations within the sector.
2.Previous redundancies that took place at the Company were paid at 5 weeks per year of service in addition to statutory entitlements, this package at later stages was reduced to 4.5 weeks per year of service.
1. The Company is facing financial difficulties as a resulf of the loss of several contracts in the competitive, low margin industry in which it operates. These redundancies are a result of the loss of these contracts and the revenue associated with them, and do not realise any direct savings for the company.
2. The Company contends that the payment sought by the Union is unrealistic and is in excess of what the Company can afford to pay.
The issues before the Court concerns selection criteria for redundancy and a claim for enhanced redundancy terms.
Having considered the positions of both parties as expressed in their oral and written submissions, the Court recommends an exgratia redundancy package of 4 week’s pay per year of service inclusive of statutory redundancy payments.
Furthermore, in all the circumstances of this case the Court does not recommend that the redundancies should be on a voluntary basis.
The Court so recommends.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
August 9th 2010______________________
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Sharon Cahill, Court Secretary.