FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2001 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : THOMAS MCDONAGH & SONS (REPRESENTED BY IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION) - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Duffy Employer Member: Mr Doherty Worker Member: Mr O'Neill |
1. Redundancy/ Relocation claims.
BACKGROUND:
2. The dispute concerns two workers who were employed at the Company's fertiliser division in Galway. Following a Company decision to relocate to Tuam the Union sought the payment of a disturbance compensation package for one worker and a redundancy package for the other worker. One worker is prepared to go to Tuam on the basis that he receives compensation for the extra travel amounting to an additional 40 miles per day plus the two additional hours that he will spend travelling. The Union is claiming a lump sum of €5,000 and an increase in pay of €80 per week. The other worker is unwilling to transfer and claims that an agreement was reached with him in 2000 whereby he could claim redundancy and under the terms of that agreement the Union is now seeking €88,118. At discussions the Company offered the worker, prepared to transfer, a once off lump sum of €1,000 plus an increase in pay of €47 per week. In respect of the redundancy claim the Company offered a redundancy severance package of €63,750. The Union rejected the offers. The dispute was referred to the Labour Relations Commission. A conciliation conference was held but agreement was not reached. The dispute was referred to the Labour Court in July, 2003 in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Cat, 1990. A Court hearing was held in Galway on the 22nd October, 2003.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1.Redundancy Lump Sum. The worker is claiming the redundancy package which was offered to him in the Company's letter of 14th November, 2000 and which was further confirmed by Management on the 28th August, 2001. This redundancy package was previously provided to workers in the employment who were made redundant and, as such, the precedent should be maintained. The Union's claim is reasonable in the context of the 40 years of valuable service provided by the claimant.
. 2.Relocation.In the case of the worker willing to transfer to Tuam the Union's claim for an increase of €80 per week on his basic pay reflects the additional time which he has been travelling and the lump sum of €5,000 is towards additional travel, petrol etc,. The Company's offer does not reflect the extra hours travel which will add to the working week of the claimant.
3. Both workers have given full co-operation to the Company in all moves it has undertaken and, while the Company accepts there is merit in their cases, the point of disagreement arises on the amounts that should be paid.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1.Redundancy Lump Sum.The Company offered the worker alternative employment in Galway with the same salary and conditions which he currently enjoys. He refused the offer. The Company also originally offered the worker the sum of €30,000, inclusive of statutory entitlements, in respect of his redundancy claim together with approximately three months seasonal work every Spring from then until retirement. The Company's final redundancy offer of €63,750 and no seasonal job is reasonable in the circumstances.
2.Relocation.The Company considers that its offer to the first worker is fair and reasonable. Pending the issue of the Court's recommendation the Company is paying the worker a weekly travel allowance which will cease with the issue of the Court's recommendation.
3. In relation to the correspondence of 2000 and 2001 to the worker Management maintains that these letters were always speculative, made by prior management, and conditional, stating that "if his position" was made redundant then a package would be looked at. In the final analysis it is for the employer, not the employee, to decide if a job is redundant.
RECOMMENDATION:
Having considered the submissions of the parties the Court recommends as follows:
Redundancy Lump Sum.
The Court believes that it is not unreasonable for this worker to claim a redundancy package in line with that offered to him in November, 2000 and confirmed in August, 2001. The Court recommends that he be paid 75% of the amount due using this formula (i.e.€68,364) and that he be offered casual seasonal work for the 3 months of the year in which such work is available.
Relocation
The Court recommends that the worker accepting relocation be paid an inclusive rate of €400 per week (including the current phase of Sustaining Progress) and that he receive a lump sum of €2,000. The Court notes that the current arrangement regarding the payment of a mileage allowance is temporary and will be discontinued.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Duffy
4th November, 2003______________________
TOD/BRDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Tom O'Dea, Court Secretary.