FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2004 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : IRALCO (REPRESENTED BY IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION) - AND - AMALGAMATED TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Duffy Employer Member: Mr Doherty Worker Member: Mr O'Neill |
1. Hearing arising from Labour Court Recommendation 17651.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Company is based in Collinstown Co. Westmeath and currently employs 400 workers. The Company is engaged in the manufacture of parts for the Automotive Industry. In October, 2003 a dispute between the parties in relation to inter alia, " the failure to implement redundancy terms agreed on 10th June, 2003 ......." was the subject of a Labour Court investigation and recommendation. On the 4th November, 2003 the Court in LCR 17651 recommended as follows:
Redundancy Package.
The Company contends that in July, 2003 it realised that the redundancy agreement which they had concluded one month earlier was no longer viable in the context of redundancy affecting salaried staff.
In the Court's view, the agreement entered into between the parties in June, 2003 is a valid subsisting industrial relations agreement and its terms must be honoured by both parties. Accordingly, the terms of the June agreement should apply to the current redundancies.
It is noted that the Union is prepared to acknowledge the current financial difficulties with which the Company is now faced, and is prepared to enter into an arrangement which could involve deferring part payments due under the June, agreement. In that regard the Court recommends that the payment of any amount in excess of €45,000 should be deferred. The parties should meet in April, 2004 to consider if and when the outstanding amounts due and owing should be paid. Should the parties fail to reach agreement, the matter may be referred back to the Court".
Subsequently the paries entered discussions but the Company advised the Union that due to its financial situation it was not in a position to meet the terms of the June, 2003 agreement. This was not acceptable to the Union. Both parties agreed to refer the issue back to the Court for a definitive recommendation.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Company has failed to engage in any meaningful negotiations with the Union on implementing LCR 17651.
2. The Line Supervisors were all made compulsorily redundant and the Company did not honour the agreement made in relation to the redundancy payments to these workers.
3. The Union accepts the Court's contention that the agreement entered into between the parties in June, 2003 is valid, therefore, its terms should now be honoured by both parties. They should now be discussing ways to implement the agreement.
4. While the Union does not deny that the Company still has some financial difficulties, nevertheless it has recently employed 80 new workers on a variety of tasks and has implemented a 6% pay increase on a phased basis.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. As the Company is still sustaining losses, it is not in a position to make any further redundancy payments to the Line Managers in the foreseeable future. The Company's sales level has dropped over the past number of years.
2. The Company operates in an extremely competitive industry. Its competitors, over the past number of years have set up operations in low cost economies and the downward pressures with prices in this sector are relentless. The Company is struggling to maintain a critical mass in the Automotive Industry and it needs to focus all its resources on improved efficiency in order to retain its existing business and to win new business.
3. The Company requests that the Court acknowledge that the Company will not be, in the short to medium term, in a position to make any further payments in connection with these redundancies and the matter should now be closed.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court recommends that the amount outstanding to each individual concerned be paid on the following basis:
One-third of the outstanding amount on 1st September, 2005
One -third of the outstanding amount on 1st December, 2005
Remaining outstanding amount on 1st April, 2006.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Duffy
26th July, 2005
tod______________________
Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Tom O'Dea, Court Secretary.