FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2004 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : GRANGEFORD PRECAST LTD (REPRESENTED BY CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY FEDERATION) - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Ms Jenkinson Employer Member: Mr Grier Worker Member: Ms Ni Mhurchu |
1. Enhanced redundancy terms.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Company is part of the Concast Precast Group and was established in 1985 to manufacture a range of precast concrete components for the construction industry, for example stair units, wall panels and beams. Due to the downturn in house/apartment building it became necessary to seek 40 redundancies early in 2007 after placing 10 employees on temporary lay-off in December 2006. The Company offered the statutory redundancy payments as is the norm for the construction industry, but the Union argued that the Company is a manufacturing company and an enhanced offer should apply.
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 29th May, 2007, in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 31st August, 2007.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. This is the first occasion that forced collective redundancies were put to the workforce, and as a manufacturing Company, the Union are seeking 5 weeks pay per year of service in addition to statutory entitlements. Those members that do not qualify for minimum statutory entitlement should receive Company payments pro rata to those that do qualify
2. The Company is profitable and can easily meet the Union claim.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. Statutory redundancy entitlements were paid in the past by the Company, to deviate from this now would have knock-on effects with other possible redundancies with other companies within the group.
2. To concede, this claim would put a huge financial burden on the Company which is struggling to survive in an ever increasingly competitive market.
RECOMMENDATION:
The issue before the Court concerns a claim by the Union for enhanced redundancy severance terms on behalf of 40 workers made redundant between January and April 2007.
The Company submitted that its business is related to the construction industry where the norm is to apply statutory redundancy payments only.
The Court accepts that the Company's business is related to the construction industry; but however, it is a manufacturing Company and not a construction Company.
Having considered the submissions made by both parties, the Court recommends that the Company should pay 2 weeks pay per year of service in addition to their statutory redundancy payments which have already been paid, and 2 weeks pay pro rata per year of service for those who did not qualify for statutory redundancy.
The Court does not recommend an extension of these terms to the 13 workers who entered into and signed agreements with the Company on different severance terms.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Caroline Jenkinson
20th September, 2007.______________________
JF/MC.Deputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to John Foley, Court Secretary.