FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2001 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : GOBLIN (IRELAND) LIMITED (REPRESENTED BY IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION) - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Duffy Employer Member: Mr Doherty Worker Member: Ms Ni Mhurchu |
1. Redundancy terms.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Company is involved in the manufacture of floor care products in Tralee, Co. Kerry, and is part of the Glen Dimplex Group. Due to trading difficulties, the Company is seeking to implement a survival plan which involves 43 redundancies. Management initially proposed "compulsory" redundancies which meant that the selection process would be on a 'last in, first out' basis and offered 3 weeks pay per year of service, inclusive of statutory entitlements. This was rejected by the Union.
The Union are seeking that the redundancies be on a voluntary basis. The Company would not agree, there are a significant number of long serving staff and the associated cost would be prohibitive.
The dispute could not be resolved at local level and was the subject of a conciliation conference under the auspices of the Labour Relations Commission. During conciliation, a difficulty emerged in relation to a group of workers (10) which had transferred to the Company approximately 5 years ago. The Union indicated that these workers could only be reckoned as having 5 years in service. Under the principle of 'last in, first out', this would result in the 10 workers concerned being made redundant. The Company, sought legal advice, which indicated that the previous service of the 10 workers concerned, transferred to them under the Transfer of Undertakings Regulations. This meant that none of the 10 workers would be made redundant. The Union had difficulty with this. At conciliation, the Company indicated that it would consider allowing a limited number of voluntary redundancies (10). The Union would not consider this approach. As agreement was not reached the dispute was referred to the Labour Court on the 10th March, 2004 in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 2nd April, 2004.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3.1 The terms and conditions of the redundancy proposals were unrealistically low and the "compulsory" aspect was completely unrealistic. The proposals were rejected by the workers after a ballot, by a majority of 98%.
2. The workers (10) through the Acquired Rights Directive 'carry' their service for 'reckonability' are perceived as enjoying seniority which adversely affects 'original' employees.
3. The low monetary aspects of the proposals (compulsory aspect) along with the transferred workers (10) caused rejection by a large majority.
4. The Union acknowledges the trading difficulties and the economic realities that the traditional manufacturing sectors are suffering. However, this Company is owned by the Glen Dimplex Group, a company with vast financial resources.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4.1 In this fiercely competitive market and as a significant element of the survival plan the Company will have to implement the 43 redundancies as a matter of priority.
2. Management has already put forward its absolute bottom-line position in respect of the redundancy programme. They have agreed to allow 10 voluntary redundancies to cater for the 10 workers who transferred under the Transfer of Undertaking Agreement and who carry their service.
3. Any concession of the Union's claim would jeopardise the Company's future operations in Tralee.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court notes that the current agreement between the Union and the Company provides that where redundancy arises, selection will be on the basis of last in first out. It is further noted that for reasons outlined to the Court, the Company is prepared to agree that 10 of the redundancies now arising will be on a voluntary basis with the remainder being selected in accordance with the agreement.
Having considered the submissions of the parties, the Court is of the view that the approach contained in the ERO's proposal of 24th February, 2004 is reasonable. However, the Court recommends that the terms be modified in respect of those to be made compulsorily redundant be modified to four weeks per year service plus statutory entitlements.
In the case of voluntary redundancies, the Court does not recommend any change in the terms proposed by the ERO.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Duffy
14th April, 2004______________________
JBChairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Jackie Byrne, Court Secretary.