FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : CONNACHT GOLD CO OPERATIVE SOCIETY REPRESENTED BY IBEC - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Duffy Employer Member: Mr Doherty Worker Member: Mr Nash |
1. Redundancy package.
BACKGROUND:
2. The case concerns a dispute between Connacht Gold Co-Operative Society and SIPTU in relation to appropriate redundancy packages to be offered in the event of redundancy occurring in the Company. Management contend that redundancy terms of four weeks pay per year of service inclusive of statutory entitlements would be the appropriate package.
The Union's position is that previous redundancies in the Company were of greater value to the workers on the basis that there was no cap and that it if new terms are introduced it will effect those with long service, who will struggle to secure employment elsewhere. The Union also contends that diluting the redundancy package will result in redundancy becoming the preferred option rather than protecting employment.
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 26th November, 2009, in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990.
A Labour Court hearing took place on the 18th May, 2010, the earliest date suitable to the parties.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Company's main focus is the development of the business. There are no immediate plans to introduce redundancies but certainty is needed going forward to ensure future investment and the Company's continued viability going forward.
2. The continuation of the current redundancy package is prohibitive. Management's suggested package of four weeks pay per year of service inclusive of statutory entitlements, capped at 2 years pay is fair and sustainable in the current economic climate. Redundancy terms in excess of that will question the future viability of the Company.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The redundancy terms are agreed with the Company and represent a considerable package to the members. If a "cheaper" redundancy packagewas agreed it may become the preferred option for the Company rather than the protection of employment.
2. The imposition of a cap will greatly reduce the entitlements of those with long service, which represents a large portion of the workforce currently employed. This is discrimminatory towards older workers as their service is likely to be longer than younger workers.
RECOMMENDATION:
While no redundancies are contemplated at present the company wishes to renegotiate the agreements on ex-gratia payments currently in place. For its part the Union believe that negotiations on redundancy terms should more appropriately take place if and when redundancies arise. They are, nonetheless, prepared to have negotiations on this matter.
In Recommendation LCR18139 the Court recommended that the parties should commence negotiations on a new harmonised redundancy agreement to apply throughout the company in respect of future redundancies. While some discussions have taken place on foot of this Recommendation no progress was made in concluding a new agreement.
The Court recommends that the parties should now enter negotiation with a view to reaching agreement in line with LCR18139. In these negotiations the parties should seek to agree on a new package providing for a less complicated formula on the calculation of redundancy terms. They should also avoid any provisions which could give rise to discrimination on grounds of age.
Should the parties fail to reach agreement the matter may be referred back to the Court.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Duffy
3rd June, 2010.______________________
AH.Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Andrew Heavey, Court Secretary.