FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : CADBURY (IRELAND) LIMITED - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Flood Employer Member: Mr McHenry Worker Member: Ms Ni Mhurchu |
1. Voluntary severance terms.
BACKGROUND:
2. The dispute arises from a decision by the Company (1) to contract out transport and distribution from its Rathmore, Co. Kerry plant and (2) to implement "Vision 2000" (a rationalisation programme) in the manufacturing facility on the site. The implications of the proposals are a reduction of 17 workers in the manufacturing area and a reduction of 28 in the distribution area. Local discussions took place on a voluntary severance package. However agreement was not reached and the matter was the subject of a number of conciliation conferences, under the auspices of the Labour Relations Commission, arising from which a set of proposals issued which, inter alia, provide for severance terms for volunteers for redundancy, as follows:-
2 - 15 years' service:- 3 times redundancy act plus £13,000 lump sum
15 - 22 years' service:- 3.5 times redundancy act plus£30,000lump sum
22+ years' service:- 4 times redundancy act plus£35,000lump sum
(40+ years' service: lump sum = £40,000)
Age 62 years on 1/6/00:- statutory entitlement plus£35,000lump sum
Age 63 years on 1/6/00:- statutory entitlement plus £30,000 lump sum
Age 64 years on 1/6/00:- statutory entitlement plus£25,000lump sum.
The Company, in line with the above proposals, issued all employees with personal details and sought volunteers for redundancy. The proposals attracted only 23 volunteers. Consequently, the dispute was referred to the Labour Court, in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. The Court carried out its investigation on the 15th September, 2000.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The workforce are opposed to the contracting out of transport and distribution which have been an integral part of the Company's operation in Rathmore since its inception. The Company's latest rationalisation proposals are seen as being the penultimate step towards the Company's withdrawal from the area. For each redundancy that takes place in the area, there is no alternative coming on stream.
2. The Company's proposed redundancy terms compare unfavourably with terms aid by other milk processors (details supplied to the Court)
.
3. While the proposals might seem attractive to those with short service, they are inadequate for those workers with medium to long service. The proposals should be amended by removing the reference to the redundancy act, as this has the effect of applying a £300 weekly pay limit, and by enhancing the lump sum. A further substantial improvement should be provided to those with 22+ years' service while the cap being applied to those aged 62 to 64 should be removed.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The redundancy proposals that emanated from conciliation effectively increased the Company's original offer by an average of £7,000 per worker. In agreeing to this, the Company has used the full provision made for severance payments in Rathmore.
2. The terms for voluntary severance are generous. The future of remaining workers must not be jeopardised by an excessively costly redundancy programme.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court, having considered all the information before it, does not recommend a change to the Company proposals for redundancy.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Finbarr Flood
3rd October, 2000______________________
MK/MKChairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Michael Keegan, Court Secretary.