FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : MITIE FACILITIES MANAGEMENT (REPRESENTED BY IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION) - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Duffy Employer Member: Ms Doyle Worker Member: Ms Tanham |
1. Redundancy Terms
BACKGROUND:
2. This case concerns a dispute between the Company and the Union in relation to a claim for enhanced redundancy terms. The Union is seeking enhanced redundancy terms on the basis that the Company is profitable and the loyalty and long service of the work force has greatly assisted in the success of the Company over many years. Management contends that it is not its policy to apply redundancy terms in excess of statutory entitlements on the basis that it operates in an extremely competitive environment and the cost associated with the Unions claim are not sustainable.
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 13th September 2013 in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 13th November 2013.
UNION'S ARGUMENT:
3 1 The closure of the Diageo breweries at the Dundalk, Kilkenny and Waterford sites will result in large numbers of staff being made redundant. The staff in question have long service and will find it difficult to find alternative employment in the current economic climate. In all the circumstances the Union's claim for 3.5 weeks pay per year of service in addition to statutory entitlements is reasonable and should be conceded.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENT:
4 1 The Company does not pay redundancy terms in excess of statutory entitlements. It is operates in an extremely competitive environment and cannot sustain the cost of the Unions claim.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court has taken full account of the oral and written submissions of the parties in this case. It recommends that the Company should offer, and the Unions should accept, an ex gratia payment equal to two weeks’ pay per year of service in addition to statutory terms.
The Court makes its recommendation based on the particular circumstances of this case and it is not intended to establish a norm in this company or in the broader cleaning / security sector. Accordingly, it should not be relied upon in any similar case in either this Company or the sector.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Duffy
18th November 2013______________________
AHChairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Andrew Heavey, Court Secretary.