FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : DROGHEDA CONCENTRATES (REPRESENTED BY IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION) - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Ms Jenkinson Employer Member: Mr Grier Worker Member: Ms Ni Mhurchu |
1. Issues Arising From Closure
BACKGROUND:
2. The Company's manufacturing plant in Drogheda is closing in the second half of 2008. Although a comprehensive closure package was agreed following lengthy negotiations at conciliation in late 2007, a number of issues subsequently emerged which the parties could not agree on.
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 29th July, 2008, in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 12th September 2008, the earliest date suitable to the parties.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Company is an extremely profitable multi-national business and the Workers in the Drogheda plant played a very significant role in this success.
2. As this claim is seeking the extension of an agreement, which the Company entered into voluntarily, it can not be seen as a cost-increasing claim which is restricted under the provisions of 'Towards 2016'.
3.The Company should be loyal to its own employees by keeping on a limited number of general operatives until the end of the year to assist their craft colleagues with the decommissioning of the plant.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The redundancy terms were accepted by the Workers in full and final settlement and, with an average redundancy package of €300,000, are very generous.
2. As general operatives are not trained to do decommissioning work there is no justification to retain them once all warehousing and distribution activities cease.
3.The Company will not consider applying national agreement pay increases to individuals who are no longer in the employ of the company and who have accepted generous severance packages in full and final settlement.
RECOMMENDATION:
The dispute before the Court relates to (a) claim for entitlement to a long service award for staff with in excess of 20 years and (b) issues arising concerning the Company’s Redundancy Severance Package.
The Court has considered the positions of both parties as expressed in their oral and written submissions.
a)claim for entitlement to a long service award for staff with in excess of 20 years
The Court notes that staff employees receive a 3% of basic pay as a lump sum payment each year, after 15 years service, which compares favourably with that paid to other grades in the Company for long service and consequently, does not find in favour of the claim.
b)issues arising concerning the Company’s Redundancy Severance Package
The Court notes that following extensive consultation and negotiations with the Union (and another Union) at the latter end of 2007, an agreement was reached on the terms of a redundancy package, which was balloted upon by the members and accepted by letter from SIPTU on 7th December 2007. The vast majority of the Union’s members accepted the package as a full and final settlement, when their employment terminated in June 2008. Therefore, the Court is of the view that it is not possible to re-open the deal done at this stage and consequently, rejects the claims.
The Court so decides.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Caroline Jenkinson
22nd September, 2008______________________
JMcCDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Jonathan McCabe, Court Secretary.