FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : NEW BROS CORK/EASON & SON - AND - MANDATE SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Mr McGee Employer Member: Mr Doherty Worker Member: Mr O'Neill |
1. (I) Redundancy package (II) Payment cap (III) Loyalty payment (IV) Inclusion of overtime in calculation. (V) Service accrual.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Company has been in the newspaper and magazine distribution business since the 1950s and operated under the trading name of News Brothers in the Munster region. In 2006 a joint venture resulted in the formation of a new company responsible for distribution on an all island basis which necessitates the closure of the Cork warehouse thus rendering it's 80 staff redundant. Discussions surrounding the issue are on-going for the past 18 months and now seem too complex to resolve before the revised closure date of mid August, 2008.
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 3rd March, 2008 in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 2nd April, 2008.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. Both the Unions agree that an enhanced redundancy package which includes overtime in the calculation and loyalty payment is warranted in this case, firstly as a result of the Company saving an estimated €2.5 million per annum in wage costs and secondly because other permanent jobs are currently not available in the Cork area resulting in many of our members facing long-term unemployment.
2. The redundancy payment cap will only affect a small number of workers, therefore the cost of it's removal should not be too big a financial burden to the Company.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. This section of the business has dipped in and out of profitability over the past number of years, the Company's offer is the same as what was accepted by SIPTU for recent redundancies and includes rostered overtime in the calculations.
2. In view of the financial circumstances of the business a loyalty payment is not possible and neither should the redundancy payment cap be removed for similar reasons.
RECOMMENDATION:
Having considered the arguments made by the parties, the Court recommends as follows:-
- Redundancy Package:
Given the difference between this and the previous case in this Company, where there was some alternative to redundancy available, the package in this case should be adjusted as follows:-- 6 weeks' pay per year of service for the first 15 years of service, 5 weeks' pay per year of service thereafter, all inclusive of statutory redundancy entitlements
Cap:
The Cap should be raised to €150,000 for all involved.
Loyalty Payment:
The Court does not recommend concession of this claim.
Inclusion of average Overtime in calculation:
In regard to the circumstances outlined to the Court at the hearing, this claim should be conceded.
Service Accrual:
The Court does not recommend concession of this claim.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Raymond McGee
17th April, 2008______________________
JFDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to John Foley, Court Secretary.