FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : PIERSE CONTRACTING (REPRESENTED BY CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY FEDERATION) - AND - BUILDING AND ALLIED TRADES UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Ms Jenkinson Employer Member: Mr Murphy Worker Member: Mr Nash |
1. (A) Redundancy Terms (B) Alternative Work
BACKGROUND:
2. This case concerns a dispute between the Company and the Union in relation to redundancy terms and alternative work. The Union is seeking enhanced redundancy terms for seven of its members that were made redundant in 2009, receiving statutory payments only. The Union contends that the package offered at this time was not in line with previous redundancy terms offered to employees in similar grades, some of whom had lesser years of service and yet received greater redundancy settlements in terms of four weeks pay per year of service. The Union is now seeking the same redundancy package to be applied to the seven carpenters that faced redundancy in 2009.
The Union is also seeking the transfer of its members to sites outside of the Dublin area where work is available and to sites where sub-contractors are currently being used to carry out the work of its members.
Management's position is that due to the downturn in activity and its current financial position, it is unable to pay redundancy terms in excess of statutory entitlements. Management also maintain that sub-contractors have always been used in accordance with the terms of the REA and therefore no worker was displaced as a result of any sub-contracting work carried out.
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 12th March 2010, in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 8th July 2010.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
1.Previous redundancies within the Company have been paid at four weeks per year of service. The Union contends that it is unfair and discriminatory to its members that the Company did not offer a similar redundancy package to them.
2. The Union contends that there is work readily available for its members and that the use of its members rather than sub-contractors would prove to be cost-effective and productive for the Company.
EMPLOYER'S ARGUMENTS:
1.The Company is no longer in a financial position to pay redundancies above the statutory entitlements
2.The Company contends that a genuine redundancy situation arose when the work of the carpenters came to an end and there was no further work available to them atthat time
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court has considered the written and oral submissions of the parties on the two issues referred.
Redundancy Terms
The Union sought four weeks pay per year of service inclusive of the statutory redundancy terms for carpenters made redundant in 2009 and 2010. The Company stated that it was not in a position to pay in excess of the statutory redundancy payment terms.
The Court recommends an ex-gratia redundancy payment of 2 weeks per year of service, capped at €600 per week, in addition to their statutory redundancy payment.
Transfer of Carpenters to other sites
The Union submitted that due to the changing circumstances in the industry that the carpenters should be transferred to other work sites where work is available rather than be made redundant. It referred to the Company's use of sub-contractors to carry out this work where such work is available. The Company stated that due to the economic necessity it would always evaluate the work requirements and the organisation of work for each contract and would determine whether the work should be carried out by direct employment or by sub-contracting and reserves the rights to manage each project.
However, as both parties indicated that there was scope for further discussion on the issue the Court recommends that such discussions should take place to consider the feasibility and appropriateness of transferring carpenters to other work sites.
The Court so recommends.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Caroline Jenkinson
August 9th 2010______________________
SCDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Sharon Cahill, Court Secretary.