FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : DIAMOND INNOVATIONS IRELAND OPERATIONS - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION TEEU UNITE DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Hayes Employer Member: Mr Murphy Worker Member: Mr Shanahan |
1. Redundancy terms.
BACKGROUND:
2. This case concerns a dispute between the Company and the Unions in relation to redundancy terms. The Company is closing its plant located in Clonshaugh, Dublin and moving its operations to Ohio, USA. The Unions are seeking enhanced redundancy terms on the basis of the compulsory nature of the redundancies. The Company considers the package to be extremely fair in the circumstances given the financial position of the Company and the imminent closure of the Dublin Plant.
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 the 15th May, 2013, in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990.
A Labour Court hearing took place on the 23rd May, 2013.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The redundancy offer (5.5 weeks' pay per year of service) plus statutory redundancy entitlement capped at €85,000 is inadequate given the service profile of the majority of workers. The cap effectively penalises these workers for their loyalty to the Company over many years.
2. The redundancy terms on offer should be based on P60 earnings and should also include shift service pro rata on redundancy calculations.
3. All Workers should be paid an additional €2000 service payment and not just those with service in excess of 15 years' service.
4. The Unions consider it discriminatory on those close to retirement to limit payments to the amount of notional earnings from redundancy to retirement.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The terms on offer are equal in value to the packages offered in 2009 which cannot be improved upon in the current circumstances.
2 The Company is committed to funding the deficit in the Defined Benefit (DB) Pension Scheme and will continue to do so at a significant cost as previously agreed.
3. The Company has incurred significant financial losses in recent times and the cost of the package will add a significant amount to these losses. The enhanced terms sought by the Unions are unsustainable.
4. The earnings to retirement cap is in line with previous redundancy schemes in the Company.
5. The Company cannot sustain the costs of continuing the payment of Health Insurance Premia. This is out of line line with previous redundancies in the Company.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court has carefully considered the submissions of both parties to this dispute.
In the particular circumstances of this case, the Court recommends that, subject to full co-operation with an orderly wind down of the Company, the severance terms on offer be amended by excluding the amount of the statutory redundancy entitlement for the purposes of calculating the cap on the level of severance payments set out in the scheme. Subject to that adjustment, the Court recommends that the employers severance proposals be accepted in full and final settlement of this dispute.
The Court so recommends.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Brendan Hayes
31st May, 2013.______________________
AH.Deputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Andrew Heavey, Court Secretary.