FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 20(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : JOHNSON MANUFACTURING LTD - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Duffy Employer Member: Ms Doyle Worker Member: Mr Nash |
1. Pursuing adherence to an agreement on enhanced redundancy payment.
BACKGROUND:
2. This dispute arose from the Company's failure to adhere to an agreement which provides for redundancy terms of statutory terms, plus three weeks per year of service plus the 60% rebate payable to the Company. SIPTU, on behalf of the Workers, referred this case to the Labour Court on 5th March, 2010, in accordance with Section 20(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969, and agreed to be bound by the Court's Recommendation. A Labour Court hearing took place on 17th February, 2011.The Company declined to attend the Hearing or to communicate its position to the Court.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Company entered into a signed agreement with the Workers.
2. The terms of the agreement are clear and unambiguous.
3.The Company must adhere to the terms of this agreement.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court regards it as regrettable that the Company declined to attend the Hearing or to communicate its position to the court.
It is clear that an agreement exists between the Union and the Company which provides for redundancy terms of statutory terms, plus 3 weeks per year of service plus the rebate payable payable to the Company.
Those associated with this claim were made redundant and were paid statutory terms only.
The Court can see no reason as to why the terms of the agreement should no be applied to those associated with this claim. Accordingly the Court recommends that the terms of the agreement be adhered to in the class of these claimants.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Duffy
4th March, 2011______________________
JMcCChairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Jonathan McCabe, Court Secretary.