FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2004 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : NCR LIMITED - AND - AMICUS DIVISION : Chairman: Ms Jenkinson Employer Member: Mr Murphy Worker Member: Mr Nash |
1. Dispute concerning compulsory redundancy.
BACKGROUND:
2.
NCR UK Limited is a multinational global corporation involved in the design, manufacture, service and maintenance of ATMs and Cash Tills. At a meeting on 15th January 2007 two senior Customer Specialists (both were named in the Court proceedings) were informed that their job roles were at risk of redundancy due to re-organisation of the Company's operations and changes to its service delivery and on 15th February 2007 redundancy notifications were issued to both. The Company has offered the two Employees statutory entitlement terms plus two weeks' pay per year of service, which was rejected by the Union. However, Employee I accepted the package and remained on the Company's pay-roll until 7th June 2007. Employee II applied for an alternative role which carries a lower salary within the Company.
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 14th May 2007 in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act,1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 6th June 2007.
2. Finding suitable alternative positions ought to be the responsibility of the Company and should carry existing terms and conditions and be located within Ireland.
3. Voluntary redundancy and early retirement options should replace compulsory redundancy and also be made available to the wider section of Customer Engineers.
4. Whatever is decided by the Court as fair and equitable for Employee II should also be applied to Employee I who accepted the original offer of redundancy by the Company.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:4. 1. The change in service delivery impacted on only two employees' roles and therefore to consider them part of the wider pool of Customer Engineers for redundancy purposes is not appropriate nor applicable.2. A number of alternative job roles were to the brought to the attention of the two Employees by the Company.This has resulted in the one remaining Employee applying for a new role and the result of her application should be known within a month.
3. The last two financial years' reports showed the Company making heavy losses and therefore it is not in a position to increase its offer of statutory redundancy plus two weeks' pay per year of service.
RECOMMENDATION:
The dispute before the Court relates to the Union's claims regarding redundancies within the Company. The Company placed two senior Customer Specialists on notice of redundancy due to a change in demand for their expertise (both were named in the Court proceedings). Employee I requested to leave the organisation in order to avail of alternative employment elsewhere before the expiry of his notice. Employee II applied for an alternative position within the organisation; her notice was due to expire on 7th June 2007, however, the Company offered to extend it in order to allow her an opportunity to consider her options, on foot of her application for an internal post.
The Company has offered 2 weeks' pay per year of service plus the statutory redundancy entitlements to the two Employees concerned.
The Union submitted claims to the Court disputing the compulsory nature of the redundancies; outlining its position in the event of further reorganisation plans by the Company and sought meaningful discussions between the parties and an exploration of alternative employment options. The Union also sought an enhancement of the Company's redundancy package.
Having considered the views of the parties expressed in their oral and written submissions, the Court recommends that in the event of a redundancy situation arising in the future, the parties should agree a protocol for effecting redundancies in terms of prior consultation and the format for redundancies.
In the instant case, taking all the circumstances into account, the Court recommends that the Company should pay both Employees concerned 4 weeks' pay per year of service plus the statutory redundancy entitlements. In case of Employee I, he should be paid the enhanced redundancy payment recommended by the Court with immediate effect. In the case of Employee II, the Company should hold off paying the recommended payment to allow the Employee an opportunity to consider her options for a further period of one month - the extended notice will expire on 6th July 2007.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Caroline Jenkinson
11th June 2007______________________
JFDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to John Foley, Court Secretary.