FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : NOONAN SERVICES LIMITED (REPRESENTED BY IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION) - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Mr McGee Employer Member: Mr Murphy Worker Member: Ms Ni Mhurchu |
1. Redundancy
BACKGROUND:
2. The Company was formed in 1977 as a commercial contract cleaning company. The Group, which operates across Ireland and the UK, has expanded its service offering in recent years to meet the market's growing demand for 'multi-service' support services providers.
The dispute before the Court concerns a claim by the Union for an ex-gratia payment in respect of 7 instrument/ tool-cleaning staff recently made redundant. The Union is claiming 3 weeks' pay per year of service on top of statutory entitlements already paid. The claim was rejected by the Company.
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 23rd December 2008, in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 5th February, 2009.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1.The Union contends that through its correspondence and meetings with the Company it has shown that statutory redundancy payments have not been the norm wherever they were contested.
2. The Union maintains that its members who have been made redundant are now facing a depleting job market. If these workers find employment again in the contract cleaning sector they are unlikely to achieve the rate of pay which they enjoyed in their roles at Pfizer.
3. The Union is merely seeking an enhanced package of 3 weeks' plus statutory for its members who have lost good jobs at Pfizer, a very successful Company which has benefited from the past service and dedication of these members.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1.The Company states that it has complied with all its legal obligations with respect to the Workers concerned and cannot under any circumstances concede to this claim.
2. The Company maintains that established custom and practice clearly indicates that statutory redundancy payments are the norm in the Company and the contract cleaning industry.
3. The Company contends that payments above statutory have never been a feature of the contract cleaning industry and that concession of this claim would have serious cost implications for the Company and the industry in general.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court has previously accepted that there is no established pattern in the contract cleaning sector of making ex-gratia payments in redundancy situations, but has also noted that in some cases lump sums in addition to statutory entitlements were paid.
Given the background enunciated in this particular case, the Court believes that in all the circumstances an additional payment is warranted. The Court accordingly recommends that in all the circumstances the Company should pay each Worker, in addition to their statutory entitlement, a sum equivalent to the rebate applicable to their individual redundancy payment.
This recommendation applies solely on the facts of this particular case and may not be used or cited as a precedent in any other or future case in the contract cleaning industry.
The Court so recommends.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Raymond McGee
13th February, 2009______________________
MG.Deputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Madelon Geoghegan, Court Secretary.