FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2004 SECTION 20(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : SCHWARZ PHARMA (REPRESENTED BY IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION) - AND - A GROUP OF WORKERS (REPRESENTED BY JOHN HORGAN) DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Flood Employer Member: Mr Doherty Worker Member: Mr O'Neill |
1. Redundancy terms.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Company is undergoing a restructuring programme and has introduced a restricted voluntary severance programme. The claim is on behalf of a number of non-unionised staff and is for enhanced redundancy terms i.e. equal to that of the unionised staff. The workers concerned are staff from middle management, supervisory, technical and administrative functions. The dispute was the subject of two conciliation conferences at the Labour Relations Commission in November and December, 2003. The Industrial Relations Officer (IRO) involved made a 10 point proposal to the parties . The proposal included 7 weeks' pay per year of service, inclusive of statutory, to a maximum of 104 weeks. Point 3 of the proposal is the main cause of concern for the workers concerned, and reads as follows:
"The definition of a weeks pay for the purposes of ex gratia is to be defined as basic plus shift where appropriate, plus composite of annualised hours payment for those working annualized hours after 27/01/97. This means that the Company will recognize and take into account the annualized weekly rate for those who specifically work annual hours at the date of being made redundant (RPI issue)."
The problem for the group of workers is that very few of them are in receipt of annualised hour payments and this will put them at a disadvantage compared to the various unionised groups. The Company offered to pay a gross lump sum of €225 per year of service to employees not in receipt of annualised hour payments. This was rejected by the workers concerned and they referred the dispute to the Labour Court on the 20th of December, 2003 in accordance with Section 20(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 28th of April, 2004, in Limerick, the earliest date suitable to the parties. The workers agreed to be bound by the Court's recommendation.
WORKERS' ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The annualised hours payment is made to the unionised staff in lieu of overtime. Employees in the group concerned who work overtime (though not all are paid for it) should have it reflected in the calculation of their severance payments when those on annualised hours are so rewarded.
2. The basic pay of the workers should be increased by 10% or by basing it on actual earnings for the last year so as to reflect their overtime earnings
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The proposal package put forward by the IRO is very generous given the Company's overall commercial situation.
2. It was made clear to all parties during negotiations that the IRO's proposal excluded overtime when calculating the redundancy terms.
3. Conceding the claim would significantly increase the cost of the redundancy package across the board.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court has considered the written and oral submissions made by the parties in this case.
The Court notes that a a settlement proposal was put forward by the Industrial Relations Officer, the terms of which it was agreed would be recommended for acceptance by the staff representatives. The representatives indicated that they did so on the basis that it was the best deal available.
The Court, taking into account all of the circumstances of this case, does not recommend concession of the claim. However, if there are any changes made to the terms of the Company's proposal for any other group, then this claim can be re-lodged.
Arguments were made by the staff representatives on the grounds of equal treatment for Union and non-Union staff, and that there had been discrimination in this case. However, the case before the Court is under the Industrial Relations Act, 1969, and not under Equality legislation.
The Court must deal with this dispute under the relevant Act, in this case the Industrial Relations Act, 1969, and, therefore, the Court cannot consider the question of discrimination as raised.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Finbarr Flood
31st May, 2004______________________
CON/MB.Deputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Ciaran O'Neill, Court Secretary.