FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : COILLTE - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Flood Employer Member: Mr Pierce Worker Member: Mr Rorke |
1. Rehearing Arising From LCR15316.
BACKGROUND:
2. The dispute concerns the redeployment of 2 Fitters and was the subject of a Labour Court hearing on the 29th of August, 1996. In LCR15316, which issued on the 23rd of September, 1996, the Court recommended, inter alia, that if either or both of the workers concerned should wish to consider voluntary redundancy, then discussions on a package should take place between the parties. Agreement was not reached, however, and the matter was the subject of a further Court hearing, on the 16th of December, 1996.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The redeployment of the 2 workers in question is unsuitable because the 3 options available would involve the de-skilling of the workers, would or could involve loss of earnings and would give them less beneficial conditions of service than they have enjoyed heretofore.
2. The 2 workers would accept redeployment provided that the type of work involved would maintain their skill levels or enhance them.
3. On the grounds that the transfers are unacceptable to the workers involved, the Union requested that the Company withhold notice of transfer, pending a Court hearing on the issue of redundancy terms. The Company did not accede to the Union's request and, accordingly, the 2 workers have been laid off since November, 1996, without pay.
4. That the package on offer in relation to redundancy is capped at 27 weeks' pay is unacceptable given the special circumstances involved (details supplied to the Court). Redundancy terms equal to those available in other profitable semi-state companies, e.g., the ESB and An Bord Telecom would be appropriate.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The early retirement terms detailed in the Company's letter of 15th November, 1996, to the Union, are identical to those which were offered to the Company's industrial workforce in the latter half of 1995. As is the case with all voluntary early retirement schemes offered by Coillte since its inception in 1989, the terms of the 1995 scheme required the prior approval of the Minister for Finance as provided for in Section 44 of the Forestry Act, 1988. It is also the case that the cost attaching to pension liability in relation to reckonable service of Coillte staff who served in the Forest Service pre- Coillte is, effectively, borne by the Minister for Finance. The Company, accordingly, has no discretion in regard to early retirement terms.
2. In recognition of the particular circumstances attaching to this case, the Company offered an additional ex-gratia sum of £1,000 to each of the men, without prejudice to the terms of the Early Retirement scheme. This offer was not accepted.
3. The Company has offered the best terms which can be made available to these employees. The offer of the ex-gratia sum is more than reasonable, particularly given the circumstances whereby a range of options is available to these men to remain in employment with the Company on the basis of guaranteed earnings.
RECOMMENDATION:
Following on from LCR15316, the Court was requested to make a recommendation in relation to a possible voluntary redundancy package for the 2 employees involved, should they wish to avail of voluntary redundancy.
While the Court accepts that a previous redundancy package is available, the Court would recommend that, given the exceptional circumstances of these 2 cases, the Company offer of the 15th of November, 1996, be modified as follows :-
Option2 (a)
The maximum of 27 weeks' pay to be adjusted to 52 weeks' pay.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Finbarr Flood
3rd of January, 1997______________________
S.G./M.K.Deputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Michael Keegan, Court Secretary.