FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : J. DONOHOE (ENNISCORTHY) - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Duffy Employer Member: Mr Doherty Worker Member: Mr Nash |
1. Redundancy Issues
BACKGROUND:
2. The issue before the Court concerns the proposed redundancies due to the Company's finacial position. The Company's position is that it has incurred serious losses in the last 12 months due to the deteriorating motor sector and therefore, redundancies are necessary across 3 departments within the Company to help cut cost. The Union's position is that its members have consistently worked with the Company to help reduce costs and were at all times prepared to engage in a constructive way to bring about savings. The Company refused to negotiate on the redundancies or any counter proposals.
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 5th March, 2009 in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 1st April, 2009.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1 The 6 employees selected by the Company for redundancy all have service longer than others in the Company. When the Company produced a list of employees it also created job titles which were unknown before that and allocated people to departments in order to alter seniority.
2 The Union's position has been to implement a wider short time to be reviewed after the summer. Failing the Company agreeing to that, the Union sought an enhanced voluntary redundancy package open to all non craft people.
3 It is neither fair nor equitable for the Company to hand pick long service staff and pay statutory redundancy.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1 In selecting employees for redundancy, the Company has been fair and transparent, selecting employees on the basis of last in, first out within clearly defined jobs and functions.
2 The Company is currently operating in a loss-making environment. Sales have plummeted which has had a severe knock-on effect across all departments.
3 The Company has tried previously to operate some departments on a week on, week off basis but even such an extensive reduction in hours cannot be maintained in this format due to cost and continuity issues.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court recommends that in the circumstances of this case the first approach should be to seek redundancies on a voluntary basis across the Company. A package of 4 weeks pay per year of service, inclusive of statutory terms should be offered.
In the event of there being insufficient volunteers the Company should be entitled to make a selection on a LIFO basis within established occupational designations.
This recommendation is made having regard to the circumstances of this case and is not intended to have precedent value.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Duffy
9th April, 2009______________________
DNChairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to David P Noonan, Court Secretary.