FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : TOTE IRELAND LIMITED (REPRESENTED BY IRISH BUSINESS AND ECONOMIC CONFEDERATION) - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Duffy Employer Member: Mr Doherty Worker Member: Mr Nash |
1. Redundancies
BACKGROUND:
2. The Company is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Horse Racing Ireland (HRI). The dispute concerns the Company's decision to make five workers - known as "The Core Group" - redundant. In 1999 they were made redundant by the Company and then re-employed with their present terms and conditions under a redeployment scheme. The reason given by the Company for the current redundancies is that significant elements of their duties have ceased and the remaining duties can be carried out more effectively by using existing staff. The Group attends 190 race meetings at various locations in a calendar year at a cost of €300 per day per worker. The Company also employes 600 casual workers who work on average 20-30 days per year at a cost of €140 per day worked. The redundancy offer was 4 weeks' pay per year of service inclusive of statutory. The Company also offered to retain the workers, give each one a lump-sum of €15,000 but with a lesser number of guaranteed days and pay at the casual rate. Both offers were rejected.
The dispute was referred to the Labour Relations Commissions and a conciliation conference took place. As the parties did not reach agreement the dispute was referred to the Labour Court on the 14th April, 2009, in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 2nd July, 2009.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. This is not a true case of redundancy as the work being done by the Group will be taken over by the casual workers. It was a decision made by the Company based purely on cost. The activities cited by the Company as being discontinued are only a small portion of the work done by the Group.
2. The redundancy package given to this group in 1999 was far in excess of what is on in the current situation.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. Making the Core Group redundant is just one of a number of measures taken to address a rapidly deteriorating situation in the Company (details supplied to the Court). Since November, 2008, the Company has sought to engage with the worker affected and the Union on the question of redundancy but without success.
2. As the principal functions of the Group have become redundant it is impossible for the Company to continue to employ them solely on operator, supervisor or cashiering duties. It is also not economically viable to employ them as the casual staff who can do the work are paid less than 50% in comparison to the Group.
RECOMMENDATION:
Having regard to all the circumstances of the case the Court recommends that the parties should agree in principle to the introduction of redundancy scheme or, in the alternative, an arrangement whereby core staff would relinquish their current conditions in return for compensatory package and a guaranteed level of work on new conditions.
The terms of the redundancy scheme and the terms and conditions under which the alternative arrangement proposed would operate should be the subject of further negotiations between the parties.
These negotiations should commence as soon as possible and should conclude within six weeks. If final agreement is not reached outstanding issues may be referred back to the Court.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Duffy
13th July, 2009______________________
CONChairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Ciaran O'Neill, Court Secretary.