FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2001 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : REHEIS IRELAND - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION AMICUS DIVISION : Chairman: Ms Jenkinson Employer Member: Mr Grier Worker Member: Ms Ni Mhurchu |
1. Forced redundancy package
BACKGROUND:
2. The Company withdrew from the antacid business in September 2002 resulting in a number of job losses, this was implemented on a voluntary severance basis. The remaining staff who were involved in the production of antiperspirants were informed on the 11th of August, 2003 that the Company was ceasing production in Ireland and relocating to the USA. The Company issued their severance terms to all employees and informed them that the total value of the package was the same as the redundancy package offered to their colleagues in September 2002.
- The dispute before the Court concerns a claim by the Unions for the statutory rebate of up to 60% on the enhanced statutory redundancy entitlements to be given to their members. The Unions maintain that the Company is treating these employees who were being made redundant on a forced basis less favourably than their colleagues who left the Company on a voluntary basis.
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. As agreement was not reached, the dispute was referred to the Labour Court on the 30th October,2003, in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 15th January, 2004. The Company did not attend the hearing.
The Company submitted a letter on the 13th January, 2004, stating that they had ceased operations at the end of December 2003 and had provided a fair and generous redundancy package that the employees had accepted, and under these circumstances it would be inappropriate to participate in the Labour Court hearing.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The offer made by the Company is in respect of forced redundancy and the total value of the severance terms are the same as offered to their colleagues in 2002, their make-up, because of the enhanced statutory entitlements are not.
2. The Company had operated at a profit, but decided to relocate to the USA, resulting in the loss of our members jobs.
3. The payment made by the Company to their employees in respect of redundancy, over and above the statutory entitlements are a recognition of the service given by each individual to their employer.
RECOMMENDATION:
Having considered the submission made by the Union and the statement made by the employer, the Court recommends concession of the Union's claim that the Company should pay the value of the enhanced statutory rebate to those employees made redundant after 11th August 2003.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Caroline Jenkinson
26th January 2004______________________
JO'CDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Joanne O'Connor, Court Secretary.