FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : GLANBIA (SNOWCREAM, WATERFORD) (REPRESENTED BY GLANBIA CONSUMER FOODS IRELAND) - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Duffy Employer Member: Mr Grier Worker Member: Mr O'Neill |
1. Redundancy terms and closure.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Company in its on going efforts to achieve greater efficiencies, plans to close its Snowcream milk production plant at Glenville in Waterford City and transfer production to its plants in Ballytore in Co. Kildare and Drogheda in Co. Louth where there is ample extra capacity. The Union is resisting closure and are seeking to have the Company's decision reversed, however the Company have categorically ruled out a reversal of the decision to cease production. The Union is also rejecting the terms of redundancy on offer and are seeking to have this matter dealt with at National level rather than site by site which historically was the case.
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 October, 2008 in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 25th November, 2008.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Company has a moral and ethical responsibility to the Workers and the greater community whose loyalty has contributed to the growth and success of the Company over the past 50 years.
2. The redundancy terms on offer falls well short of expectations and are not acceptable to the Workers, many of whom may never work again.
3.This is a compulsory redundancy situation, not voluntary as in the past, this element ought to be reflected in the terms which should have an increase in the number of weeks per year of service, the cap should be removed, and a lump sum needs to be included.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. It clearly does not make economic sense to run three milk production plants given the over-capacity in the larger two. The decision to close Glenville will ensure that the business will remain competitive and therefore protect jobs into the future.
2. The terms on offer, together with the proposed closure/discontinuance payment, reflects fair compensation, given the urgent need to reduce costs particularly in the current economic situation.
RECOMMENDATION:
In its consideration of this case the Court is conscious of the urgency in bringing this matter to finality having regard to the proposed closure date of the Snowcream site. The Court is also conscious of the proposed meeting between the Company and the Union on the Union's claim for a national agreement on redundancy terms.
In all the circumstances of this case the Court considers it appropriate to make a recommendation on how the proposed redundancies at issue should be dealt with without prejudice to the outcome of any national negotiations which may ensue between the parties.
The formula put forward by the Company is based on redundancy situations which were voluntary. The Court accepts the Union's argument that some premium should attach to the proposed redundancies having regard to the fact that they are compulsory. It is noted that this is implicitly accepted by the Company which has offered some enhancement of the formula on that account.
The Court recommends that the Company now offer and that the Union accept a package based on 6 weeks pay per year of service, inclusive of statutory entitlements, plus €500 per year of service, subject to a cap of €160,000.
This recommendation is made in particular circumstances of this case and is not intended to have any precedent value. It is also without prejudice to the discussions which are due to take place between the parties at national level. Should any improved formula emerge from these national discussions it should be applied retrospectively to those made redundant in this instance.
The Court further recommends that the parties meet on acceptance of this recommendation to explore opportunities for redeployment within the group and that any vacancies elsewhere be offered to those who would otherwise be made redundant.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Duffy
9th December, 2008______________________
JFChairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to John Foley, Court Secretary.