FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : WINTHROP ENGINEERING (REPRESENTED BY CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY FEDERATION) - AND - TECHNICAL, ENGINEERING AND ELECTRICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Ms Jenkinson Employer Member: Mr Doherty Worker Member: Ms Ni Mhurchu |
1. Redundancy Terms
BACKGROUND:
2. The issue before the Court concerns a claim by the Union for enhanced redundancy terms on behalf of its member. The Worker was employed with the Company from May, 1997 to September, 2008. During his employment he worked on numerous projects for the Company as an electrician or Chargehand. The Union argues that the worker is entitled to redundancy terms appropriate to his position within the Company. The Company contends that due to the downturn in business, the Worker is one of a number of employees that it had to make redundant.
The dispute could be not resolved at local level and was the subject of a Conciliation Conferences under the auspices of the Labour Relations Commission. As agreement was not reached the matter was referred to the Labour Court on 10th February, 2009, in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on 11th November, 2009.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1 The Union has heard of other instances where the Company has made an exgratia payment in relation to a redundancy situation.
2 The Worker has been a trusted employee both as an electrician and Chargehand and should receive an appropriate redundancy settlement of six weeks pay per year of service.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1 There is no precedent in the electrical industry for paying enhanced redundancy terms over and above the statutory requirements.
2 Due to the recession with reduced tender prices, it is not possible to pay additional amounts of money for redundancies and replacement work is not available.
RECOMMENDATION:
The parties agreed that the issue before the Court was a claim on behalf of one worker for enhanced redundancy terms.
The Union sought a redundancy payment of 6 weeks pay per year of service. The Company rejected the claim and stated that it was not in a position to pay an exgratia payment in addition to the statutory redundancy terms.
The Court recommends that the worker should be paid a redundancy payment of 2 weeks’ pay per year of service plus his statutory redundancy payment.
The Court so recommends.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Caroline Jenkinson
30th November, 2009______________________
DNDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to David P Noonan, Court Secretary.