FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2004 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : OMEGA TEKNIKA (REPRESENTED BY IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION) - AND - UNITE (AMICUS) DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Duffy Employer Member: Mr Murphy Worker Member: Ms Ni Mhurchu |
1. Redundancy terms.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Company is based in Finglas and presently employs 41 workers. Currently the Finglas facility is the final packaging place for Lyclear and also for products purchased in China. These products are shipped to Omega Pharma affiliates in Europe and some are exported directly to countries outside of Europe.
In 2006 and early 2007 the Company planned and implemented a voluntary redundancy programme resulting in the loss of 29 full-time equivalent positions. Following a conciliation conference in January 2007 redundancy terms were agreed which allowed for 5.5 weeks' pay per year of service, no cap, plus statutory redundancy.
The Company subsequently made two workers redundant who had not applied for voluntary redundancy. The Union made a claim for increased redundancy payments for the two Workers made compulsorily redundant and this claim was the subject of local discussions.
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 9th October, 2007, in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 16th January, 2008.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1.The Union maintains that the redundancy agreement reached at conciliation in January 2007 precedes any other arrangement and refers exclusively to voluntary redundancy.
2 The two Workers concerned have not sought access to the redundancy package that was agreed at conciliation.
3. The Union contends that it is well established in redundancy situations that where compulsory redundancies are required that enhanced terms are available to those selected. The Union are seeking an additional two weeks' pay per year of service for the two Workers concerned.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Company proposal of 5.5 weeks' pay per year of service, with no cap, plus statutory payment is fair and reasonable in all the circumstances. The absence of a 'cap' greatly increases the benefit to the employees.
2. The Company position is that the twoWorkers concerned, although not volunteering for redundancy, would benefit from the same redundancy package that had been agreed with the Union and implemented previously.
3. There has been no distinction drawn in the past between voluntary and compulsory redundancies. This package was agreed with the Union irrespective of the nature of redundancies. The redundancy package compares very favourably with redundancy payments in other companies in the healthcare/medical devices sector in Dublin and elsewhere.
RECOMMENDATION:
It is noted that the Workers associated with this claim are pursuing separate claims under the Unfair Dismissals Acts, 1997-2001, alleging unfair selection for redundancy. For the avoidance of doubt the Court wishes to make it clear that this recommendation does not purport to address in any way the issues relating to the circumstances in which the Claimants were selected for redundancy or matters related thereto.
The sole matter for adjudication by the Court is the adequacy of the redundancy package in the circumstances of the case. Notwithstanding the compulsory nature of the selection of the Claimants for redundancy the Court is satisfied that the package is reasonable. Accordingly the Court does not recommend concession of the Union's claim.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Duffy
31st January, 2008______________________
MG.Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Madelon Geoghegan, Court Secretary.