FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2004 SECTION 20(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : JOHN RONAN & SONS (REPRESENTED BY IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION) - AND - AMALGAMATED TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Mr McGee Employer Member: Mr Doherty Worker Member: Mr O'Neill |
1. Enhanced redundancy / severance package.
BACKGROUND:
2. The issue before the Court concerns a claim by the Union on behalf of four former employees (three operatives and one manager) of the John Ronan & Sons Company for enhanced redundancy terms as a result of a closure of the Tanning Production Facility of the Ronan Group of Companies in Clonmel on 29th August, 2003.
At the end of 2002 early 2003 the economic situation in the Company deteriorated. The Directors decided that as there was no immediate prospect of improvement in the market they would have to implement an agreement for lay offs, initially for a 5 week period to enable the Company regroup due to falling sales. Notwithstanding the above agreement the premises of the Company was taken over and illegally occupied by the workforce. This action commenced from 2nd April, 2003 to 2nd July 2003. In Carrick-on-Suir on the 1st July 2003 following a ballot a settlement was reached.
At a meeting of the 2nd July, 2003 the Union advised that three employees had decided not to sign their RP9 forms at this point, but had decided to remain on lay-off in the hope of the Company reopening. On the 29th August 2003 the Company maintains that it was left with no option but to close its Clonmel plant. It was then necessary to make those still on lay-off redundant. On the 4th September, 2005, the Union submitted a claim for six weeks pay per year of service plus statutory for the four remaining workers. The Company refused.
The Union referred the claim to the Labour Court on the 20th May 2005 in accordance with Section 20(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969 and agreed to be bound by the Court's recommendation. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 29th August, 2005.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3.1 At all junctures the Company stated that it did not want Redundancy.
2. At the end of the dispute the amount of severance pay of an ex-gratia sum provided by the Company of lump sums depending on years of service. This deal was an individual agreement between each worker and the Company. Any deal or Agreement with the RP9 as part of it cannot be a collective deal or agreement. This was clarified at the time of the negotiations to end the unofficial action.
3. In correspondence (Appendix C) of the submission on lay off, states workers were offered the option of staying on temporary lay off.
4. The closure of the Company in August caused a forced redundancy affecting the workers and there was no voluntary element to this situation.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4.1 The illegal occupation of the Company's premises was a significant factor in the demise of the business. Three of the four claimants took part in that occupation.
2. The vast majority of the employees (91) triggered the severance terms either during the illegal occupation or in the aftermath of the vote. The claimants sought to remain on lay-off. The Company accepted this, as it intended to review the business prospects in the aftermath of the occupation.
3. Nothing was said or done by the Company which would have led any employee to believe that enhanced terms would be paid.
4. In July 2003 all management and administration employees, with the exception of the manager were paid the agreed redundancy terms which were on the same basis as the "Carrick-on-Suir" terms paid to the ATGWU hourly paid employees.
RECOMMENDATION:
It is the view of the Court, having heard the submissions of the parties, that a bona fide collective agreement was arrived at which covered the entire group of workers.
The Court however, recommends that in equity, the claimants should be paid the ex-gratia lump sums which were paid to their colleagues, in addition to their statutory entitlements.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Raymond McGee
5th September, 2005______________________
JBDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Jackie Byrne, Court Secretary.