FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : P. ELLIOTT CONSTRUCTION LTD (REPRESENTED BY CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY FEDERATION) - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Mr McGee Employer Member: Mr Doherty Worker Member: Mr Nash |
1. Redundancy.
BACKGROUND:
2. This case concerns a dispute between P. Elliott Construction Limited and SIPTU in relation to forthcoming redundancies in the Company. The parties are in dispute in relation to Protection of Employment, Selction Criteria, Call back Procedures and Redundancy compensation.
The Union is seeking that workers have their employment protected by being offered work wherever possible going forward and is seeking that the Company agree a system where workers will be called back even if only a short period of work exists. It is also seeking a selection criteria which allows for seniority to apply with regard to compulsory redundancies (i.e Last In First Out). The Union is also claiming enhanced compensation for workers who are being made redundant.
Management's position is that it cannot sustain the additional costs of the Union's claim. It contends that statutory redundancy is what is paid across the sector. Management subsequently offered an enhancement on the redundancy claim but not tothe extent of the Union's claim. In relation to selection criteria, flexibility and experience is considered by the Company to be a key factor in relation to the retention of essential skills and retaining senior staff purely on the basis of seniority is not necessarily appropriate in the circumstances. Management further contend to be committed to direct employment of staff and to have compromised on the call back issue by agreeing to call workers back if seven weeks work can be guaranteed.
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 matter was referred to the Labour Court on 16th September, 2008 in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on 19th September, 2008
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3 1 The Union is committed to protecting employment and is seeking an agreed call back system for direct employees. The Company has suggested that if seven weeks work can be guaranteed, a worker will be called back. In the current economic situation, seven weeks' work may not be guaranteed and the workers will accept shorter periods of work if necessary.
2 The Company's selection criteria for redundancy that flexibility, skills and experience would be considered and all things being equal, that seniority would apply is unclear and open to confusion and manipulation of workers by management. The Union is seeking that the priciple of seniority applies in relation to redundancy selection.
3 The workers in this Company have contributed greatly to the success of the Company in boom times. In such a profitable Company it is unfair and unacceptable to only offer minimal redundancy terms to the workforce.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4 1 The Company is operating in extremely difficult economic climate and cannot sustain the additional costs of the Unions claim.
Statutory redundancies have always been applied in the Construction sector. In the case the Company has offered an enhanced redeundancy package to the workers.
2 The Company has agreed to call back direct employees in the event that seven weeks' work can be guaranteed. This is a considerable concession by Management in its current trading difficulties.
3 The Company cannot solely use the principle of seniority as it must also take into accountflexibility, experience and necessary skills in its day to day operations.
RECOMMENDATION:
Having considered the submissions made to it by the parties, the Court recommends as follows:-
That the proposal issued by the IRO on 8th September 2008 be accepted with the following amendments to what was recommended for acceptance by both parties.
Protection of Employment:-
To additionally provide that the parties should meet as a matter of urgency to agree clear, transparent and workable guidelines for selection and recall of staff , bearing in mind the present state of the industry and the need to protect the jobs of existing staff as far as possible.
Redundancy Terms:-
To be amended as follows:-
6 months' and up to 1 year's service -€1000
over 1 year's service and up to 2 years - €2000
(The above to apply to existing staff only)
2-3 year's service - statutory +2 weeks' pay
3-4 years' service - statutory + 3 weeks' pay
4-5 years' service - statutory + 4 weeks' pay
over 5 years' service - statutory + 1. 5 weeks' pay per year of service
A week's pay in all cases to be capped at €600.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Raymond McGee
23rd September 2008______________________
AHDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Andrew Heavey, Court Secretary.