FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : IRISH LIFE - AND - MANUFACTURING, SCIENCE, FINANCE DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Duffy Employer Member: Mr Keogh Worker Member: Mr. Somers |
1. Restructuring of southern region (Pfm).
BACKGROUND:
2. The dispute concerns the interpretation of a letter dated August 1997 regarding Severance Terms for Sales Managers and the impact of the interpretation on the process regarding the reduction of management numbers. There are 6 staff represented by this claim. The matter was the subject of a conciliation conference under the auspices of the Labour Relations Commission. As agreement could not be reached, the dispute was referred to the Labour Court on 5th March 2001, under Section 26 (1) of the Industrial Relations Act 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on 23rd March 2001.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Company could not countenance a situation where it would provide a generous financial incentive to its best Sales Manager to exit the Company without any tie to the organisation.
2. The Company could not be put in a position of paying a significant sum of money to one of its most effective Managers to leave the Company and set up in direct competition to the Company. This would be commercially illogical.
3. The whole exercise of deselecting was aimed at strengthening the Company's position in the Southern region.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. All reasonable steps have not been taken to achieve the required changes by voluntary means.
2. All other options to achieve the required efficiencies or savings, other than job looses, have not been explored.
3. The Union does not accept that failure to achieve the reductions would present a serious threat to the future viability of the organisation.
RECOMMENDATION:
Both parties have relied on the terms of a letter sent to the Union by the Company in 1997 in support of their position. Having carefully considered the relevant extract of this letter, the Court finds the language used ambiguous and imprecise. In these circumstances the Court cannot interpret what was intended or agreed in 1997 in respect of future redundancies.
It is, however, clear to the Court that the package previously agreed was negotiated in respect of a situation of compulsory redundancy and on the basis that the corporate agency tie-in would apply. The group of employees concerned accepted this at that time. The Court believes that because of those considerations the terms agreed went significantly beyond those normally found in similar packages in analogues employments.
The Court notes that the Union is opposed to compulsory redundancy in the circumstances now pertaining and is also opposed to the continuance of the agency tie-in.
In these circumstances the Court recommends that the parties should make one further attempt to negotiate a new severance agreement which would reflect industry norms and operate without the agency tie-in. This package should be offered, in the first instance, on a voluntary basis.
Should the parties fail to agree on the terms of a new agreement within one month of the date of this Recommendation, the matter may be referred back to the Court.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Duffy
23rd May, 2001______________________
HMCD/CCDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Helena McDermott, Court Secretary.