FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : UNIVERSAL DEHYDRATES (REPRESENTED BY MANAGEMENT SUPPORT SERVICES IRELAND LIMITED) - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION TECHNICAL, ENGINEERING AND ELECTRICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Flood Employer Member: Mr Keogh Worker Member: Ms Ni Mhurchu |
1. Dispute concerning redundancy.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Company is involved in the processing of frozen vegetables and of freeze dried food for the export market at Midleton, Co. Cork. The Company, in February, 1999, indicated its intention to cease the process of frozen vegetables at the plant because of a deterioration of the home market and loss of exports, which would result in sixty-two redundancies. The Company offered a redundancy package of 4 weeks' pay per year of service, plus statutory entitlements with a cap of £300 per week. The Union rejected the offer. The dispute was referred to the Labour Relations Commission and a conciliation conference was held on the 31st of March, 1999. Agreement was not reached. The dispute was referred to the Labour Court by the Labour Relations Commission on the 9th of April, 1999. A Court hearing was held in Cork on the 19th May, 1999.
UNIONS' ARGUMENTS:
1. Following the Company's announcement of the closure of the processing of frozen vegetables section, the Unions at a meeting with Management on 26th of February, requested that the Company provide a profile of age, service and status of workers affected. The Unions also sought sufficient time to identify and reach agreement on any discrepancies in those details, and that the Company confirm its acceptance of workers' past service. Management was requested not to issue the Notice of Redundancy forms (RPI's) during those negotiations which should be conducted with the Unions. The Unions claimed a substantial increase in terms previously agreed for rationalisation and that the salaried position of craftsmen be taken into account for the purpose of calculating any new severance terms.
2. The Company has frustrated the attempts of the Unions in trying to agree reckonable service, status, salaries, etc and has issued RPI's as and from the 20th of April, 1999. It has also entered into agreements with individual workers.
3. The Unions have rejected the Company's offer because it is the same one as offered to 10 workers in the 1997 rationalisation programme. The circumstances now obtaining are different. It is compulsory redundancy and warrants a substantially increased offer. The Unions are also conscious of the number of casual/seasonal workers who would not benefit greatly from the offer. This confirms the importance of establishing workers' service with the Company, for the purpose of arriving at agreed severance terms. The Company has not adopted a facilitating attitude but instead circumvented the issues on which the Unions sought clarification.
4. The present redundancy merits a considerable increase in the Company's offer as it is distinctly different to the voluntary redundancies in 1997. The Court, in previous recommendations, has acknowledged this difference - (LCR's 15879, 15772, 16045, 16047, refer).
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
1. The Company's financial situation is now worse than on previous occasions because the Company is closing down an aspect of its business with no opportunity of recouping losses, which have been incurred in the past. The Company has incurred significant losses in recent years.
2. The severance terms offered are the maximum which the Company can afford in the circumstances. It has been involved in considerable expenditure with no profit.
3. While the Company, because of its financial situation initially considered something less than four weeks it concluded that, in fairness and in the best interest of workers to continue with the established precedent of four weeks which was acceptable in the past. Some workers have already accepted the terms and left the employment. The Company believes that an amicable and early settlement would increase the chances of a sale to another employer who could take on the workers. The Company has been unable to move some of its equipment which it could have sold due to the present situation.
4. Management believes job prospects are good for the workers. Several other companies in the area have indicated interest and workers should be able to secure alternative employment. The large number of workers who have approached the Company about leaving prior to the termination date supports this belief.
5. The Company employed a number of workers who would be regarded as temporary. In some cases the Company was using dates which did not reflect the seasonal nature of the their employment. The Company is willing to look at the issues of workers' employment commencement dates and discuss them with their Unions once the potential cost of any adjustments to their position on ex-gratia payments is known.
RECOMMENDATION:
Having considered the written and oral submissions made by the parties the Court is satisfied that this redundancy should be treated differently to previous redundancies.
The Court having considered the package on offer recommends that the employees accept the terms on offer in return for the Company lifting the ceiling from £300 to £400.
On acceptance of the above recommendation discussions should commence to agree the dates to apply to temporary staff.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Finbarr Flood
11th June, 1999.______________________
TOD/BCChairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Tom O'Dea, Court Secretary.