FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : COILLTE TEORANTA - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Ms Jenkinson Employer Member: Mr Murphy Worker Member: Mr O'Neill |
1. Redundancy Terms
BACKGROUND:
2. This case concerns a dispute betwen Coillte Teoranta and SIPTU in relation to voluntary redundancy terms for Operative staff. Management have offered three weeks pay per year of service, capped at one years' salary plus statutory entitlements. The Union's position is that the offer should be increased in line with previous redundancies in the organisation and should only be capped after 35 years service.
It is seeking four week's pay per year of servie plus statutory entitlements The Union also objects to the employment of contractors while direct employees are being made redundant and is seeking a comitment from Management in relation to any possible benefits that may be applied to staff from the Pension Strategy Review curently taking place.
The dispute was not 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 matter was referred to the Labour Court on 24th September, 2008 in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on 7th November, 2008.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3 1 Management's offer in relation to the redundancies is unacceptable. Previously workers were paid four weeks pay per year of service plus statutory entitlements. The imposition of a cap at one years' salary is also completely unacceptable as many workers have long service and will incur significant losses as a result.
2The Pension Strategy Review, when finalised, may yield benefits for lower paid employees of Coillte. The Union is seeking that management consider the retrospective application of such pension benefits to operatives availing of the current redundancies.
MANAGEMENT'S ARGUMENTS:
4 1 Management have offered generous redundancy terms to those applying for the scheme. The Union's claim of four week's pay per year of service,plus statutory entitlements and the removal of the cap is unsustainable and cannot be conceded.
2 The previous redundancies referred to by the Union relate to Tree Surgeons and the compulsory redundancy situation that prevailed at that time and the fact that there were limited choices of redeployment.
3 Management is sympathetic to the situation that may arise as a consequence of the Pension Strategy Review. It cannot, however, predict the possible outcome of the Review.
RECOMMENDATION:
The matter before the Court concerns a dispute over the Company’s proposed voluntary redundancy/early retirement terms.
The Court has considered the submissions of both parties and recommends that, in addition to the terms of the early retirement scheme as proposed, the Company should increase its offer to 4 week’s pay per year of service subject to a maximum payment of
€40,000 per employee plus the statutory redundancy payment.
The Union expressed concern that the outcome of the forthcoming Pension Strategy Review should be applicable to those employees who opt for the voluntary redundancy/early retirement package and leave before it is finalised. The Company stated that it would “look sympathetically” on these employees in the event that some benefits emerge from the Review. The Court notes that this position was confirmed in writing to the Union and that the Union expressed its satisfaction with the Company’s position. Therefore, the Court was not required to make any recommendation on this issue.
The Court so recommends.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Caroline Jenkinson
24th November 2008______________________
AHDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Andrew Heavey, Court Secretary.