FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : GROUP 4 SECURITAS (REPRESENTED BY IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION) - AND - MANDATE DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Flood Employer Member: Mr McHenry Worker Member: Mr O'Neill |
1. Redundancy.
BACKGROUND:
2. The dispute concerns three female store detectives, two with 26 years and one with 20 years service respectively. The Company indicated to the three workers in March 1999, that they were to be declared redundant. Subsequently, following a change in management, the Company stated that in fact a redundancy situation did not exist as it was actively pursuing new contracts. It redeployed the workers, one to personnel and the other two to store detective duties. The Union claims that the Company should honour its commitment to make the three workers redundant, pay them their statutory entitlements and then engage in discussions on ex gratia terms. The Union seeks seven weeks pay per year of service. The Company rejected the Union’s claim. The dispute was referred to the Labour Relations Commission and a conciliation conference was held on the 29th of November 1999. No agreement was reached. The dispute was referred to the Labour Court by the Labour Relations Commission on the 11th of January, 2000. A Court hearing was held on 10th of May, 2000.
UNION ARGUMENTS
3. 1. The first employee has not worked at her job as store detective since May 1999. She has worked, under protest, in the Human Resources Department of the Company. However, this position is not a suitable alternative to her original post.
2. The second employee has worked at a variety of “stop gap” store detective tasks obviously designed to give the appearance of genuine employment. Instead of working for a paricular retail outlet, she wandered around various shopping centres with no specific role being applied to her. On occasion the worker was paid for being at home when no work was available.
3. The third employee is a part time worker paid by the Company between May 1999 and November 1999 without performing any work whatsoever. She has been on sick leave since November 1999.
4. The Company is a very substantial one with prestigious contracts worldwide. The Union’s claim is not unreasonable and it is obvious that the workers are redundant, as originally stated by the employer. All that remains to be done is for Management to acknowledge same and pay the appropriate amount.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS
4. 1. It is not in dispute that in March 1999, management did suggest that the Company envisage a redundancy situation arising for the store detective division. Following that meeting no progress was made in the issuing of RP1s (Redundancy Notice) or RP2s (Redundancy Certificate) etc. and no agreement was reached with the Union on the terms of redundancy.
2. As a result of the appointment of a new general manager, the Company policy in this matter changed thus negating the need for redundancies and the Company actively set about securing long term work for the employees involved, of a similar nature to that which they had been employed in for many years previously.
3. No redundancy situation exists as the Company has maintained the employment of the three workers concerned doing the same or similar type work to that in which they have always been employed.
4. The Union is endeavouring to force the Company into declaring redundancies which it is not prepared to do as it does have sustaining long-term employment for those concerned.
RECOMMENDATION:
The claim by the Union as clarified to the Court is for redundancy terms of 7 weeks pay for each year of service.
The Court does not believe that this claim is sustainable taking into account the background to this case.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Finbarr Flood
19th May, 2000______________________
TOD/BCChairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Tom O'Dea, Court Secretary.