FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : TDG IRELAND (REPRESENTED BY IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION) - AND - SIPTU (MPGWU) DIVISION : Chairman: Ms Jenkinson Employer Member: Mr Doherty Worker Member: Mr O'Neill |
1. Redundancy
BACKGROUND:
2. The Company is involved in the Logistics, Warehousing and Freight Forwarding business and due to on-going difficult trading conditions including the recent loss of a major customer, Management decided to give notice of termination of its contract to its remaining customers on the grounds that the site at Clondalkin is no longer commercially viable. The Company has offered its 68 staff at the site a redundancy package but the Union have rejected the offer on the grounds that an enhanced redundancy package is warranted when all the circumstances of the situation are taken into consideration.
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 18th June, 2008 in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 29th July, 2008.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. Previous redundancy packages and arrangements cannot now be used as a precedence as these were negotiated while both Company and Union were trying to save the facility.
2. The current economic climate bodes badly for the Employees now facing redundancy as many are from an older age group and will find it difficult to find alternative employment.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Company's offer is extremely fair in light of it's current commercial position and to enhance it in any way could have serious cost implications for the remaining operations in this country.
2. The Company in conjunction with FAS will organise a training and upskilling programme for those interested, and will apply the most tax efficient methodology to the redundancy payment.
RECOMMENDATION:
The matter before the Court concerns the Union’s claim for an enhanced redundancy package for its members being made redundant due to the closure of the Company’s logistics business warehouse at Kilcarberry Park on 31st August 2008.
Having considered the oral and written submissions of both parties, the Court does not find grounds to alter the ex-gratia terms of the redundancy package agreed with the Union on 15th February 2008 for the Kilcarberry site. Accordingly, the Court recommends the following package:
-6 weeks average pay per year of service inclusive of the Statutory
Redundancy payment.
-€2000 for those employees with less than 2 years continuous service.
-Financial and pension advice.
-Co-operation to be afforded by the Company in order to provide employees the
best opportunity to seek alternative employment.
-Severance payments to be made in the most tax efficient way.
The Court so decides.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Caroline Jenkinson
11th August, 2008______________________
JFDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to John Foley, Court Secretary.