FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : WOODFAB LIMITED (REPRESENTED BY THE IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION) - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Employer Member: Worker Member: |
1. Redundancy package.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Company is engaged in the timber processing industry and employs 141 staff in Aughrim and Fermoy. Following substantial losses over the previous six years, the Company decided to close its commercial mill with the loss of 29 jobs. The Company offered a voluntary redundancy package of statutory entitlement plus £150 per year of service, which was rejected by the Union members. Subsequently individual workers contacted the General Manager to request a package of £350 per year of service plus statutory. The Company agreed and 27 workers accepted the package. The remaining two fitters are on lay-off.
The Union is seeking an agreed redundancy package for the future of 5 weeks' pay per year of service plus statutory entitlement. The claim was the subject of a conciliation conference on 3rd September, 1996 under the auspices of the Labour Relations Commission. Agreement was not reached and the dispute was referred to the Labour Court on 20th September, 1996 in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. The Court investigated the dispute on 11th November, 1996, the earliest date suitable to the parties.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Company is a member of the Smurfit Group. The Group's financial report for 1995 showed a record profit of over £420 million, the highest ever reported by an Irish Company. An acceptable redundancy package should be put in place which reflects the Company's status as a member of the Group.
2. Further rationalisation and redundancies cannot be ruled out within the industry. In early 1996 desperate circumstances surrounded the industry and 65 workers were laid off. Fearing that the Company would close, workers accepted the minimal package offered, which had not been agreed with the Union. There are no sick pay or pension schemes in the Company for general workers and it is essential that, if a redundancy situation arises in the future, an agreed redundancy package should be available.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Company is not actively seeking redundancies at this stage. While the Company is still losing money, the decrease in sterling and the introduction of a new timber sales regime give some grounds for optimism. The Company is prepared to leave the previous offer of £350 per year of service plus statutory in place for the two fitters who are on lay-off.
2. The Company operates on a stand alone basis and should not be viewed as part of the Smurfit Group. In the timber industry redundancies are usually on the basis of statutory only. However, if compulsory redundancies become necessary in the future, they can be dealt with in the light of the circumstances then prevailing.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court is satisfied that there is no threat of further redundancies at this time. However, the Court understands the concerns of the workers as expressed by the Union official at the hearing. In the circumstances the Court considers it prudent not to issue a recommendation on a redundancy package. If such a situation arises in the future the matter can be referred back directly to the Court for an early hearing.
With regards to the two workers at present on lay-off, the Court recommends that they be re-employed by the Company.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Evelyn Owens
28th November, 1996______________________
D.G./U.S.Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Dympna Greene, Court Secretary.