FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2004 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : NESTLE (IRELAND) LIMITED (REPRESENTED BY IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION) - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Ms Jenkinson Employer Member: Mr Murphy Worker Member: Ms Ni Mhurchu |
1. Redundancy.
BACKGROUND:
2. Nestle (Ireland) Limited is a food and beverage company based in Citywest Business Campus, Dublin. The Company has approximately 160 employees.
Following a review of the direct sales side of the business the Company proposed a new structure in which Sales Representatives and Relief Sales Representatives would cease to exist, resulting in eleven redundancies. The Company offered the displaced Sales Representative and Relief Representatives the opportunity to apply for the new Channel Sales Executive position created. The Company also offered a redundancy package. No agreement could be reached on the terms of the redundancy package.
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 20th November, 2006. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 15th December, 2006 which resulted in a referral back to the Labour Relations Commission. Any outstanding issues could be referred back to the Labour Court.
A further Conciliation Conference took place under the auspices of the Labour Relations Commission and a new redundancy package was put before the Union's members. This was also rejected by the Union. On 6th March 2007 the Labour Relations Commission referred the outstanding matters back to the Labour Court for a further hearing, in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. Labour Court hearings took place on the 15th December 2006 and on the 14th June, 2007.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1.The Union's members do not accept that they were surplus to requirements as the Company were actively recruiting new employees to carry out a similar role while making these employees redundant.
2.At the second conciliation conference the Company improved their original offer by one week per year of service and added an additional payment for those who went over the cap of two and a half years salary. However, the Company subsequently withdrew an earlier offer to pay €2,000 to each individual in lieu of their Company VHI benefit therefore diminishing the gains made.
3. The Union maintain that the Company showed little or no enthusiasm to assist their members to cope with the redundancy situation and were slow about providing counselling and pensions advice which had been requested.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Company maintains that they have made every effort to resolve this dispute and that they responded positively to many of the issues raised by the Union.
2. The offer made at the Conciliation Conference of the 22nd December 2006 and which the Company believed has been agreed, was a substantially improved offer relative to what was available previous to this meeting.
3. The Company had requested the Union, by e-mail, to respond to its improved redundancy offer by 19th January 2007. When they failed to do so the Company felt it had no option but to issue redundancy notices to the claimants who had continued to be paid in full during the period of negotiations.
RECOMMENDATION:
The dispute before the Court concerns the Company’s restructuring of the sales force and the resulting Union’s claim on behalf of the 11 employees who were declared redundant on 24th January 2007.
In the interests of its competitiveness the Company made a decision to reorganise its sales division and eliminate the Sales Representative and Relief Sales Representative roles and replace them with a new sales structure.
Following an initial Labour Court hearing and a referral back to the Labour Relations Commission Conciliation Service, the Union put their final position to the Court.
Having considered all aspects of this dispute and taking account of the history and reasoning behind the loss of these jobs, the Court recommends that in the exceptional circumstances of this case, the Company’s offer should be improved and applied to each of the eleven claimants represented by the Union. Accordingly, the Court recommends that the Union on behalf of the 11 Claimants involved should accept the following in full and final settlement of all claims against the Company:
- 5 ½ weeks' pay per year of service plus statutory entitlements with no ceiling on the amount of the severance payment.
The Court notes that the Company indicated that it was prepared to provide pension and financial advice to the Claimants involved. The Court recommends that this advice, which should also include taxation advice where requested, should be provided on top of the recommended severance package.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Caroline Jenkinson
5th July, 2007______________________
MG.Deputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Madelon Geoghegan, Court Secretary.