FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2004 SECTION 20(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : DOYLE CONCRETE/STEELITE (REPRESENTED BY FRANK DRUMM) - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Ms Jenkinson Employer Member: Mr Doherty Worker Member: Mr O'Neill |
1. Hearing Arising From LCR18381
BACKGROUND:
2. The case before the Court concerns a dispute betwen the Company and the Union in relation to (a) redundancy terms and selection criteria, (b) rates of pay and (c) restructuring within the Company. The issues in dispute had previously been the subject of a Labour Court Hearing and the Court issued its Recommendation (LCR 18381) on the issues. The Court's Recommendation provided that if the issues were not resolved, the dispute could be referred back for a definitive Recommendation. The Union's position remains that the dispute is with Doyle Concrete/Steelite and has referred the issues to the Court in accordance with Section 20(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969 and have agreed to be bound by the Court's Recommendation.
The outstanding issues remain that the Company have not agreed redundancy terms and selection criteria acceptable to the Union nor have they forwarded any restructuring plans for the future viability of the Company. It is also the Unions position that the Company continue to pay lower rates of pay to non-national employees than is acceptable to the Union. The Company's position is that the rates of pay have been increased so as to ensure there is no discrimmination. As regards the redundancy terms and selection criteria the Company maintains its original position that the dispute has caused severe financial difficulties and it is currently unable to resume production but is hopeful to do so as soon as possible. A Labour Court hearing took place on 25th January 2006. The Court's Recommendation is as follows:
RECOMMENDATION:
The case before the Court arises from: Labour Court Recommendation No: 18381.
In Recommendation No: 18381 the Court had recommended that discussions should take place between the parties on the selection criteria for redundancy and provided that should they fail to agreethe Court would issue a definitive recommendation if requested to do so by either party. As the issues were not resolved the Union referred the entire case back to the Court for a definitive recommendation.
The Court notes that Counsel for the Company strongly contested the Unions’ referral where it related to a combined company “Doyle Concrete/Steelite” and submitted that these were two separate legal entities, whereas the Union submitted that they should be treated as one combined unit and had referred the case to the Court under Section 20 (i) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969 on that basis.
The Court hereby issues its recommendation in relation to the Union’s referral under Section 20 (i) for Doyle Concrete/Steelite.
Redundancy Terms
The Court sees no reason to change its recommendation given in LCR No: 18381 and therefore, it recommends thatthose being made redundant should receive a lump-sum equal to five weeks pay per year of service, inclusive of statutory terms.
Selection Criteria.
Having considered the submissions of the parties, the Court notes that no progress was made in relation to the selection criteria for redundancy and therefore, recommends that in the event of redundancies occurring, in the first instance voluntary redundancy should be offered on the terms as outlined above to all employees in both Doyle Concrete/Steelite. In the event of insufficient numbers applying compulsory redundancies should be selected on the basis of last in first out. Selection criteria for lay offs should be on the basis of last in first out in both Doyle Concrete/Steelite.
Reduced Rates.
The Company categorically deny that lower rates still apply and it has given an assurance to the Court that the former rates of pay have been re-established. The Court recommends that such assurances should be given to the Union in writing without delay.
Restructuring
The Company stated to the Court that it hopes to be in a position to resume production in mid-February 2006 and indicated to the Court that it was willing to sit down with the Union to discuss a restructuring/survival plan. The Court recommends that the Union should be kept informed of the Company’s progress in achieving this aim and negotiations on a restructuring plan should commence as soon as possible.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Caroline Jenkinson
2nd February 2006______________________
AHDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Andrew Heavey, Court Secretary.