FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2001 SECTION 20(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : NEWLINE DIES LIMITED - AND - A WORKER (REPRESENTED BY IRISH PRINT GROUP (SIPTU)) DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Duffy Employer Member: Mr Carberry Worker Member: Ms Ni Mhurchu |
1. Industry-norm redundancy package
BACKGROUND:
2. The worker was employed mainly as a laser and milling machine operator for a Company named Laserform (Ireland) Limited. In December, 2002, Laserform was bought out by Newline Dies Limited (the Company). An agreement between the parties stated that Laserform would take full responsibility for all employees who did not transfer to the Company. Three employees, including the worker concerned, were to be seconded to the Company until the 31st of March, 2003, at the latest. Following legal advice, it was confirmed that all employees should have transferred to the Company, and the Company wrote to the worker informing him of this.
In February, 2003, the Company decided that, with the introduction of new lasering technology, plus economic, technical and organisational reasons, the worker's position was now redundant. The Company offered the worker a redundancy package which consisted of statutory entitlements plus payment in lieu of notice plus holiday pay. This was rejected by the Union which is seeking 3 weeks' pay per year of service plus statutory payment under the old redundancy payment terms i.e. a total of 3.5 weeks' pay per year of service.
The worker referred his case to the Labour Court on the 26th of August, 2003, in accordance with Section 20(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 12th of November, 2003, the earliest date suitable to the parties. The worker agreed to be bound by the Court's recommendation.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Union believes that the worker was pre-selected for redundancy and that he, not the position, was made redundant. Other employees are still carrying out his duties within the factory.
2. The Company's business plan, which envisaged operating with a lesser number of employees, made no mention of economic, technical or organisational reasons.
3. The Union is only seeking what is the norm for redundancy payments within the printing industry.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Company was obliged to make a considerable investment in new technology if it was to remain viable. Because of the new lasering technology, the worker's position had become redundant.
2. The Company considered alternatives to redundancy for the worker but he did not have the necessary skills required to work in another area.
3. The worker found alternative employment within 2-3 weeks of being made redundant.
RECOMMENDATION:
Having regard to the economic and commercial circumstances of the employment, the Court does not believe that it would be viable to recommend concession of the Union's claim in full.
However, taking account of the claimant's service and the circumstances in which the redundancy came about, the Court recommends that the employer should offer and that the Union should accept an additional ex-gratia payment of €7,500 in settlement of the claim. This amount should be paid within a period of three months from the date of this recommendation.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Duffy
21st November, 2003______________________
CON/MB.Deputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Ciaran O'Neill, Court Secretary.