FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2001 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : PANASONIC IRELAND LIMITED (REPRESENTED BY IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION) - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Flood Employer Member: Mr McHenry Worker Member: Mr. Somers |
1. Redundancy payments
BACKGROUND:
2. The Company is engaged in the sale and distribution of consumer and business systems - e.g. televisions, videos and hi-fi equipment. The Union's claim is for improved redundancy terms for 3 of its members, 2 who work in the warehouse and a service administrator. The 3 workers have attained 7, 13 and 23 years' service respectively. The Company moved from Sandyford Industrial Estate to the Citywest Business Park in August, 2001. The Union is seeking 8 years' pay per year of service plus statutory entitlements. The Company's final offer is 3 years' pay plus statutory entitlements.
The dispute was referred to the Labour Relations Commission and a conciliation conference took place on the 18th of July, 2001. As the parties did not reach agreement, the dispute was referred to the Labour Court in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relation Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 21st of November, 2001.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Company has handled the redundancies badly and the Union has had difficulties in arranging meetings to discuss the situation.
2. This is not a voluntary redundancy situation. It is compulsory and the workers should be compensated properly. Other companies in the industry have offered better voluntary redundancy schemes than the Company is offering in similar circumstances.
3. The 2 warehouse employees concerned have been working continuously since the Company re-located in August, 2001. They are at a loss to understand the need for their redundancies. The Company has recruited at least 1 new employee since the move in August, 2001. The age profile of the 3 workers may not be conducive to them attaining future employment.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Union's original claim was for 6 weeks' pay per year of service plus statutory entitlements. It has now changed to 8 weeks.
2. The Union tried to justify the original 6 weeks' pay by claiming that the Company was a major player in the technology sector. This is not true. The consumer market is largely dominated by Philips and Sony. The slowdown in the world economy has had a serious effect on the Company.
3. The Company did not offer 4 weeks' pay per year of service as the Union claims. The current offer is fair and realistic. The Company has continued to employ the workers until this issue has been sorted out but the redundancies are necessary.
RECOMMENDATION:
It would appear from the discussions in Court that while at least one vacancy has arisen in the Company since the redundancies were declared, the parties want the terms for redundancy to be addressed.
Taking into account all of the information supplied by the parties, the Court recommends that redundancy payments of 5 weeks' pay per year of service, exclusive of statutory payments, be made by the Company in this particular case.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Finbarr Flood
29th November, 2001______________________
CONChairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Ciaran O'Neill, Court Secretary.