FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : FINSA FOREST PRODUCTS (REPRESENTED BY IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION) - AND - TECHNICAL, ENGINEERING AND ELECTRICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Mr McGee Employer Member: Mr Doherty Worker Member: Ms Ni Mhurchu |
1. Redundancy Terms
BACKGROUND:
2. The issue before the Court concerns the proposed redundancy terms for a number of craft workers. The Company sought to implement a new production plan in light of its financial position. In June, 2009 seven operatives volunteered for redundancy or sought retirement on the terms of an agreement reached with the Company and their respective union. The Company also sought four redundancies from among its craft workers. The Union met with the Company in May, 2009 in order to discuss the Company's proposals. The Union's position at that meeting was that it would not accept compulsory redundancies and that voluntary redundancies should be sought. In the event of insufficient numbers taking up the voluntary option the principle of last in, first out should be applied. The Company agreed to this subject to its operational requirements and the retention of key skills. The Union are seeking that the redundancy package be in line with what had been paid to its members in a previous redundancy situation at the Company. The Company's position is that it cannot afford to enhance the redundancy terms beyond those agreed with the other union.
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 could not be reached the dispute was referred to the Labour Court on the 17th July, 2009 in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 19th August, 2009
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1 A precedent has been set in the Company in relation to redundancies through the Labour Court in 1995, of four weeks per year of service plus statutory.
2 The Company has been very profitable for 25 years. At this time of economic recession they are choosing not to be as loyal to their workforce as the workforce has been to them.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1 The Company cannot afford to enhance the redundancy terms any more than what they have agreed with the other union and its members.
2 The Company needs to act urgently to protect against further job losses. The proposed redundancy package is offered with the view to obtaining the required number of volunteers. If that number is not obtained the Company will proceed with implementing the redundancies using the last in, first out principle
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court recommends, in all circumstances of this case, that the voluntary redundancy package recently concluded by the Company with another union in Finsa Forest Products should apply on the same basis to the workers here concerned.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Raymond McGee
9th October, 2009______________________
DNDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to David P Noonan, Court Secretary.