FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2004 SECTION 20(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : SEABAY LIMITED TRADING AS ST JOSEPH'S NURSING HOME (REPRESENTED BY MALCOMSON LAW SOLICITORS) - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Ms Jenkinson Employer Member: Mr Murphy Worker Member: Mr Nash |
1. Enhanced Redundancy Package
BACKGROUND:
2. The claim before the Court is for a severance package in addition to the statutory redundancy entitlements that the Union's members have received from the Employer. Staff were advised that the Employer would be closing down due to financial difficulties. Following this announcement the Union sought a meeting with Management to discuss severance terms. In February 2006 the Union wrote to the Employer to suggest a date for this meeting. Management advised the Union that the Employer would not be available for this meeting. Following further correspondence, the Union's members balloted for industrial action. The Union continued to try and engage the Employer over a number of weeks before deciding to withdraw industrial action and refer the matter to the Labour Court. The Employer indicated to the Court that they would not be attending the hearing. A solicitor attended on their behalf to state that the Employer had complied with their statutory obligations upon the closing of the employment.
On 13th October, 2006 the Union referred the issue to the Labour Court in accordance with Section 20(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 6th November, 2007.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1 The Union believe that the Employer can afford to pay additional severance terms to its members. The Union has no knowledge of the Employer's actual financial position but understand that the premises are worth a large sum. Furthermore, the Union understands that the Employer has interests in other similar businesses and plans to expand these in the coming two years.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS
4 1 The employment was no longer profitable and a decision was made to close down. The Employer fulfilled its statutory obligations to its workers.
RECOMMENDATION:
The claim before the Court concerns the Union's claim on behalf of seven workers for an enhanced redundancy payment. The workers concerned were made redundant due to the closure of the Nursing Home and were paid their statutory redundancy entitlement.
The Employer was not present at the hearing, however, the Nursing Home's solicitor represented their case to the Court. Having considered the matter, the Court recommends in favour of the Union's claim and recommends that 2 weeks pay per year of service should be paid to each of the workers concerned, in addition to the statutory redundancy payments already paid.
The Court recommends that this payment should be paid within one month of the date of this Labour Court Recommendation.
The Court so recommends.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Caroline Jenkinson
3rd December, 2007______________________
DNDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to David P Noonan, Court Secretary.