FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : ACHESON AND GLOVER IRELAND LIMITED - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Ms Jenkinson Employer Member: Mr Murphy Worker Member: Mr O'Neill |
1. Redundancy Terms
BACKGROUND:
2. This case concerns a dispute between the Company and Union in relation to enhanced redundancy terms. The Company is closing its production facility in Waterford resulting in redundancies for all staff. The Union is seeking enhanced redundancy terms of 3.5 weeks pay per year of service in addition to statutory entitlements. Management's position is that due to its worsening finacial position, it is unable to pay redundancy terms in excess of statutory entitlements.
The dispute was not 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 matter was referred to the Labour Court on 6th April, 2010 in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on 30th April, 2010.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3 1 The package sought by the Union is in line with redundancy terms already applied at the Company's other plants.
2 The Unions claim is fair and reasonable given the compulsory nature of the redundancies and the forthcomig difficulties for the workers in obtaining employment elsewhere.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4 1 Production at the Waterford facility is no longer sustainable and its closure is essential if the Company is to remain viable going forward. The Company cannot afford to pay redundancy terms beyond statutory entitlements.
2 The other redundancies in the Company were either the subject of written agreements between the parties or were isolated cases which do not form custom and practice within the organisation.
RECOMMENDATION:
The claim before the Court is for an enhanced redundancy payment for workers being made redundant due to the closure of the Company’s plant in Waterford.
The Union sought three and a half weeks’ pay per year of service in addition to the statutory entitlement.
The Company told the Court that due to its severe financial circumstances it could not afford to pay in excess of the statutory, however, in order to address the Union’s claim it offer to pay one additional week’s pay in excess of the statutory entitlement.
Having considered the submissions of both sides the Court recommends that the employer pay one week’s pay per year of service in addition to the statutory entitlement and this should be accepted by the Union.
The Court so recommends.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Caroline Jenkinson
25th May 2010______________________
AHDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Andrew Heavey, Court Secretary.