FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : MORRIS BUILDERS PROVIDERS (WATERFORD) (REPRESENTED BY IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION) - AND - UNITE DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Duffy Employer Member: Mr Doherty Worker Member: Ms Ni Mhurchu |
1. (1) Redundancy Terms (2) Selection For Redundancy (3) Saturday Premium
BACKGROUND:
2. This case concerns a dispute between Morris Builders Providers (Waterford) and UNITE Trade Union in relation to Redundancy Terms and Selection criteria and Saturday Premium payments. Management's position is that it must introduce redundancies to ensure the survival of the Company going forward.
It contends that the downturn in the Construction sector and competition from other businesses have greatly affected its viability. The Company contends that service, timekeeping and disciplinary issues will be the basis of the selection criteria. In relation to the payment of Saturday premium, the Company contend that it cannot sustain the ongoing cost of paying the premium.
The Union is seeking redundancy terms of six weeks pay per year of service (inclusive of statutory entitlements) and a selection criteria based on Last In First Out (L.I.F.O.). It further contends that the agreed rates for Saturday overtime should be honoured.
The dispute was not resolved at local level and was the subject of a number of conciliation conferences under the auspices of the Labour Relations Commission. As agreement was not reached the matter was referred to the Labour Court on 21st April, 2009 in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on 23rd June, 2009.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3 1 The Company may be experiencing trading difficulties at present but made significant profits during the recent construction boom. In addition, Management is not faced with the level of cuts being experienced by the workers.
2 The workers in question are low paid and rely on the premium earnings associated with weekend work. It is unacceptable that Management attempt to remove this entitlement without applying the appropriate loss of earnings formula.
3 The Union's claim for six weeks pay per year of service (inclusive of statutory) is in line with redundancies in comparable Companies and is justified in the current situation. In addition, the Company's selection criteria is unacceptable as it is unclear and unfair.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4 1 Management need to implement the redundancies to ensure viability into the future. It is unable to apply the terms sought by the Union as there is a serious financial problems within the Company.
2 Management have established a selection criteria that is fair and transparent. The criteria is based on service, timekeeping and disciplinary issues and will assist management in its objectives going forward.
3 Due to a serious downturn in business and increasing levels of monies owed by customers, the Company cannot afford to continue to pay premium payments for Saturday work.
RECOMMENDATION:
Having taken full account of the submissions of the parties the Court recommends that the dispute be resolved on the following basis: -
Redundancy payments
The Court recommends that those to be made redundant be paid 4.5 weeks pay per year of service, inclusive of statutory entitlements.
Selection
In the first instance the company should seek volunteers within the various categories. If there are insufficient volunteers selection should be on LIFO, again within the categories identified by the company.
Overtime
If staff are required to work overtime they should be paid the agreed overtime rates, unless other arrangements are agreed. This should not, however, preclude the parties from negotiating more flexible working arrangements which better meet the current need of the company
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Duffy
14th July 2009______________________
AHChairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Andrew Heavey, Court Secretary.