FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 20(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : MC CARREN AND COMPANY LIMITED - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Employer Member: Worker Member: |
1. Dispute concerning the Company's plan relating to pay, conditions, and redundancy.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Company is involved in the meat processing industry and employs over 100 workers, the majority of whom are presently on lay-off. There are currently 24 workers in the employment. In recent times the Company put forward a comprehensive set of proposals which significantly changed the terms and conditions of employment of the workforce. The Company also proposed a total of 68 redundancies. The redundancy package offered 1 week's pay per year of service plus statutory entitlements. The Company maintained that its plan was essential for the future viability of the plant. The Union rejected the proposals on the grounds that, (1) workers would suffer a substantial loss of earnings, and (2) the redundancy package was inadequate. The Union sought to refer the dispute to the Labour Relations Commission. The Company was unwilling to attend a conciliation conference. On the 25th June, 1996 the Union referred the dispute to the Labour Court under Section 20(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969 and agreed to be bound by the Court's recommendation. A Court hearing was held in Monaghan on the 11th July, 1996. The Company declined an invitation to attend the hearing.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Company is endeavouring to unilaterally change the terms and conditions of employment of the workforce contrary to agreements negotiated with the Union. The Union contends that the proposals were drafted with the intention of making it impossible for workers to accept them, thus leading to closure.
2. The Union is at all times willing to negotiate with the Company and has, over the years, afforded significant flexibility and productivity.
3. The Union contends that management is not capable of running the Company in an effective and efficient manner, and have chosen to ignore recommendations made by a consultant in relation to the expenditure of non-executive directors.
4. The Company has changed its plans on numerous occasions with no regard for the impact on workers, despite assurances that workers would be kept fully informed.
5. It is essential that full discussion takes place on the Company's plan and that proper redundancy compensation (i.e., 5 years per year of service plus statutory entitlements) be paid to workers being declared redundant.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court is concerned that the Company did not attend the hearing. Having considered the information before it the Court is of the view that discussions should take place immediately between the parties on the Company proposals.
Given the serious situation outlined to the employees the Court considers it is incumbent on both parties to explore all options in order to achieve the necessary changes required to ensure the survival of the business.
These discussions to include the issue of redundancy payments where necessary, and it is the Court's view that redundancy severance payments, if necessary, should not be less than the most recent proposals for redundancy, 21/2weeks etc.
In the event of these discussions failing and a closure situation arising the Court will make a recommendation on the redundancy terms to be applied.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Finbarr Flood
18th July, 1996______________________
T.O'D./D.T.Deputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Tom O'Dea, Court Secretary.