FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2004 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : ARNOTTS - AND - MANDATE DIVISION : Chairman: Ms Jenkinson Employer Member: Mr Grier Worker Member: Ms Ni Mhurchu |
1. Redundancies
BACKGROUND:
2. The dispute before the Court concerns a claim by the Union, on behalf of its members employed in the curtain workrooms at Arnotts Store, Henry Street, Dublin 1, in relation to redundancy terms. The Company announced the closure of the shop, which will result in the redundancy of seven staff.
- Management contends that the curtain making operation is currently running at a loss as a result of the high fixed costs associated with maintaining a workroom on the premises. The Company has taken the decision , in line with its competitors, to outsource the making of curtains to a firm in the UK with the result that costs will now be per metre. Management offered a redundancy package, which would provide for five weeks pay per year of service for the first five years, four and a half weeks pay per year of service thereafter and payments to be capped at €58,000 or the equivalent of two and a half years service, whichever is greater. Redeployment within the store was also discussed.
The Union rejected Management's offer and is seeking eight weeks pay per year of service without any cap being applied plus early retirement options. The Union contends that redeployment within the store would involve moving to retail and would also entail weekend working. The staff concerned have no retail experience and currently work Monday to Friday only. The reality is that no suitable alternative employment exists within the store.
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 6th October, 2006, in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 14th November, 2006.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The possibility of redeployment was discussed but the reality of the situation is that the skills possessed by the members concerned are not transferable within the Arnotts organisation. The situation therefore is one of compulsory redundancy. The service of the members ranges from two years to thirty seven years and it is clear, given the present state of employment in the clothing and textile sector, that it is going to be extremely difficult for them to get similar types of employment.
2. In the recent redundancy package in relation to the takeover of Roches Stores by Debenhams, six weeks pay per year of service for the first eight years and five years pay per year thereafter was paid with no cap. The Union contends that this settlement is the absolute minimum Arnotts should base their compensatory package, given the service of the some of the staff involved. The Union is seeking an improved offer of redundancy having regard to redundancy settlement in similar retail establishments in recent years.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The redundancy terms offered by the Company are fair and reasonable and have been accepted in twenty one recent redundancies in Arnotts. Any increase in the terms now, in respect of the curtain staff, would have obvious consequences.
2. The curtain making business is currently running at a loss and the Company's decision to outsource the making of curtains to a firm in the UK should mean that the made to measure curtain business should now not impact negatively on the rest of Arnotts business.
RECOMMENDATION:
The issue before the Court concerns the Union's claim for an enhanced redundancy package for those workers affected by the closure of the Company's Curtain Making Shop. Management made the following redundancy offer to staff:
- 5 years per year of service for the first five years and 4½ weeks pay for each subsequent year of service, inclusive of statutory redundancy payment, and subject to a ceiling of €58,000 or2½years basic pay whichever is greater.
The Union submitted that the Company's offer should be increased as most of the seven staff involved have very long service and are all skilled curtain makers.
Having considered the views of the parties expressed in their oral and written submissions, the Court recommends that the Company's offer should be increased to:
- 5 weeks per year of service, inclusive of statutory redundancy payment, subject to a ceiling of €90,000 or2½years basic pay whichever is greater.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Caroline Jenkinson
28th November, 2006______________________
JO'CDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Joanne O'Connor, Court Secretary.