FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2001 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : TREND TECHNOLOGIES LIMITED (REPRESENTED BY IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION) - AND - TECHNICAL, ENGINEERING AND ELECTRICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Ms Jenkinson Employer Member: Mr Pierce Worker Member: Ms Ni Mhurchu |
1. Redundancy terms.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Company is a contractor engaged in the manufacture of metal and plastic components for the computer industry. It currently employs 249 people at its plant in Dublin.
The Company claims that as a result of a downturn in business and the general downturn worldwide in the industry, it had no option but to make thirty-three employees redundant.
The Company offered three weeks' pay per year of service plus statutory entitlement to those with 2 years' service. It made no offer to those employees with less than 2 years' service.
The Union is seeking the following compensations:-
(a) 8 weeks' pay per year of service plus statutory entitlements.
(b) Pro rata for workers with less than 2 years' service.
(c) No ceiling on the minor settlements involved.
(d) Payment of one week's pay for night shift workers who were summarily laid off without notice contrary to a Company/Union agreement.
As no agreement was possible between the parties, the dispute was referred to the Labour Relations Commission. A conciliation conference was held on the 4th of September, 2001 at which the Company put forward the following proposal (a) 3 weeks' pay plus statutory entitlements for those with 2 years' service or more ; (b) 1 week's pay for those with 1 to 2 years' service; (no payment for those with less than 12 months service). The Union rejected the offer. The dispute was referred to the Labour Court on the 4th of September, 2001 in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. The Court investigated the dispute on the 20th of September, 2001.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Company's proposals are unacceptable and need to be substantially improved.
2. The Company is in breach of the provisions of the Protection of Employment Act, 1977.
3. The employees concerned have given the Company loyal service and all those losing their jobs should receive adequate compensation.
4. Redundancy terms in other Companies have varied between four weeks and six weeks' pay per year of service plus statutory entitlement.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The impact of recession in the global technology market has greatly impacted on the level of work available to the Company.
2. Management's concern now is on the consolidation of existing business and the protection of the remaining jobs.
3. The Company operates in a very competitive market. It must keep costs down or it will lose out to its competitors.
4. The Company has tried to reduce the impact on those made redundant by securing employment for 19 of the 33 employees concerned.
RECOMMENDATION:
Having considered the submissions of the parties, the Court recommends that the Company's offer at conciliation should be increased to:-
- for those employees with between six and twelve months' service - one week's pay
- for those employees with between one and two years' service - two weeks' pay
- for those employees with more than two years' service - four weeks' pay per year of service plus the statutory entitlement.
The Court also recommends that the night shift workers who were laid off without protective notice should be paid an extra week's pay in addition to the above payments as appropriate, and the payment in lieu of notice already paid.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Caroline Jenkinson
27th September, 2001______________________
LW/CCDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Larry Wisely, Court Secretary.