FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2001 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : NOONAN SERVICES LIMITED - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Ms Jenkinson Employer Member: Mr Keogh Worker Member: Mr. Somers |
1. Redundancy terms.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Union's claim is on behalf of 5 workers and is for enhanced redundancy payments in excess of statutory entitlements. The claim follows the closure of the Aventis Pharmaceutical factory in Nenagh, in 2002. The Company has rejected the claim, maintaining that it would have a serious financial impact.
The dispute was referred to the Labour Relations Commission and a conciliation conference took place. As the parties did not reach agreement, the dispute was referred to the Labour Court on the 20th of December, 2002, in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 20th of May, 2003, in Thurles, the earliest date suitable to the parties.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The workers were efficient and professional in the way they carried out their duties.
2. Other employees in Aventis were being offered 6 weeks' pay per year of service plus statutory entitlements. This is a source of anger for the workers concerned.
3. It is unfair that the Company can quote the Redundancy Payment Act and state that only statutory needs to be paid.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. Payments above statutory have never been a feature of the contract cleaning industry. Concession of the claim would have serious cost implications for the Company and the industry in general.
2. The Company paid all increases due under the National Agreements. The claim is cost increasing and is precluded under the terms of the Programme for Prosperity and Fairness (PPF).
3. The Company made every effort to relocate staff but this proved impossible except for 1 employee.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court has considered the submissions of both sides. The Court notes that the service of those made redundant is quite lengthy in many instances, and there were no alternative employment opportunities available to them. Accordingly, the Court recommends that in light of the recently introduced increased statutory redundancy payments, in the circumstances of this case the Company should pay each worker a sum equivalent to the rebate applicable to his/her redundancy payment.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Caroline Jenkinson
16th June, 2003______________________
BG/CO'NDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Ciaran O'Neill, Court Secretary.