FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : CPI LIMITED - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Ms Jenkinson Employer Member: Mr Doherty Worker Member: Ms Ni Mhurchu |
1. Redundancy - Selection criteria and terms.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Company manufacturers concrete blocks and mortar mix. Due to both the intensive and competitive nature of this product market sector, and a severe reduction in demand for the Company's products, the Workers were placed on short-time (working three weeks in four) at the end of January 2008. By May 2008, in recognition of the continuing depressed state of the market, it was accepted by both sides that it would be necessary to make a number of the Workers redundant in order to secure as many permanent jobs as possible. This dispute concerns the selection of those to be made redundant and terms of the redundancy.
This 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 30th May, 2008, in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 12th June, 2008, the earliest date suitable to the parties.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Company is part of the Grafton Group plc., which has made enormous profits over the last decade. The Union's claim is not excessive and is based on sectoral norms.
2. The Union is merely seeking to have the principle of voluntary redundancy being offered before resorting to compulsory redundancy. The Union accepts that the Company has the right to resort to compulsory redundancies if there are not sufficient voluntary redundancies, and respects the Company's discretion to determine who will then be subject to compulsory redundancies.
3.The Union is seeking statutory redundancy payments plus four weeks per year of service; the weekly amount to include overtime and shift where appropriate. Workers with less than two years service should be granted terms equivalent to Workers with two years service.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. Because of the continuing downturn in the building industry, the Company is seeking fifteen compulsory redundancies, to be selected on a 'last in first out' basis.
2. In offering statutory redundancy payments plus three weeks per year of service for the first thirteen years of service and two weeks per year of service thereafter, the Company has exceeded the redundancy formula that is in place since the 1988 agreement because firstly, the weekly amount is now defined as basic pay plus bonus and secondly, the redundancy payment on offer has not been revised downwards to reflect the significant increase in statutory redundancy since 1988.
3.The recent redundancy packages paid by Roadstone and Cemex and cited as a precedent by SIPTU are of little relevance in this case as they are much larger companies.
RECOMMENDATION:
Having considered the views of the parties expressed in their oral and written submissions, the Court recommends the following redundancy package which should be offered on a voluntary basis initially and if underscribed then any remaining redundancies may be compulsory on the basis of last in first out.
The Court recommends that the redundancy package should include the following elements:
�statutory redundancy pay, plus
�3 weeks average pay per year of service, average pay should be calculated over a 13 week period using the last 13 weeks of 2007 with 50% of the overtime earnings being included in the calculation,
�those with less than 2 years service should be paid 3 weeks average pay per year of service with prorata for less than one year’s service,
�the Company’s proposals made at conciliation to 2 potential early retirees at fixed exgratia amounts of €10,000 and €15,000 and 4 employees on a voluntary basis to a maximum calculated amount of €25,000.
The Court so recommends.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Caroline Jenkinson
23rd June, 2008.______________________
JMcC.Deputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Jonathan McCabe, Court Secretary.