FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : SERVISAIR IRELAND LIMITED TRADING AS SERVISAIR (REPRESENTED BY CROWLEY, SOLICITORS - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Ms Jenkinson Employer Member: Mr Murphy Worker Member: Mr Shanahan |
1. Redundancy issues.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Company is part of an international corporate group that provides ground-handling services at Shannon, Dublin and Cork Airports. Due to the downturn in business Management was left with no option other than the introduction of redundancy for a number of Workers in the Baggage, Operations and Ramp Sections at Shannon Airport. The dispute concerns nine proposed redundancies and Management has issued notice of redundancy to the Workers concerned offering a statutory redundancy package only. The Union has rejected this offer and is seeking to negotiate an enhanced package for the Workers.
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 27th March, 2013, in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 17th April, 2013.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The last negotiated settlement for voluntary redundancy in Shannon was two weeks' pay per year of service plus statutory and this is what the Workers are expecting on this occasion.
2. In the current economic environment where re-employment may be difficult to source, we ask the Court to recommend an enhanced redundancy package.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. There is no dispute that both the redundancies are necessary and the selection criteria issue is settled. The only remaining issue is the dispute regarding the redundancy package on offer.
2. Four Workers in the Operations Division were offered and accepted statutory redundancy terms previously and the Union raised no objections at the time.
RECOMMENDATION:
The claim before the Court concerns the issue of redundancy. The Union submitted a claim on behalf of nine Workers made redundant or about to be made redundant. It sought payment of two weeks’ pay per year of service over and above the statutory redundancy payment. The issue of selection criteria for redundancy was addressed. The Union stated to the Court that it was fully committed to the Company/Union Agreement which outlines the criteria for redundancy selection at Clause 19 of the Agreement. This Agreement provides for a three-stage selection process; in the first instance the Company will endeavour to seek volunteers, then in the absence of same, the criteria will be defined by Management in consultation with the Union and will focus around skill base and competency and finally the Agreement provides for selection on the basis of the “last-in/first-out" principle, all other criteria being equal.
Having considered all the circumstances of this case the Court recommends that the nine nominated persons made redundant or about to be made redundant should be paid two weeks’ pay per year of service over and above the statutory redundancy payment. Taking account of the Company’s financial circumstances the Court recommends that the ex-gratia payment should be paid in two equal moieties, the first payment should be paid on 1stJuly 2013 and the second on 1stJanuary 2014.
The Court so recommends.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Caroline Jenkinson
24th April, 2013______________________
JFDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to John Foley, Court Secretary.