FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : GEORGIA PACIFIC - AND - SIPTU PRINTING TRADES SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Duffy Employer Member: Ms Doyle Worker Member: Mr O'Neill |
1. Redundancy Terms
BACKGROUND:
2. The issue before the Court concerns a claim by the Union on behalf of its members for enhanced redundancy terms. In September 2009 the Company informed its employees of the need for 77 redundancies due to the cessation of certain operations. In response to this, the Union put together proposals representing a 32% cost reduction in an effort to save some of the jobs. The Company argues that it considered the proposals put forward by the Union but the savings were considerably less than was necessary.
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 22nd December, 2009, in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 21st January, 2009.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1 The reason for the loss of jobs is to relocate them to the United Kingdom to justify significant investment made there over the years.
2 The Company is a multi-national corporation shedding jobs for the sake of it, without any attempt to consider the alternatives.
3 Workers are unnecessarily being made redundant as the product they produce is not being withdrawn, it is being replaced by imports from their own employer. It is unlikely a lot of the workers being made redundant will find work in the current climate and in some cases will never work again.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1 The Company is honouring the severance terms as negotiated with the Union as part of a collective bargain in 2003.
2 The Company believes that the redundancy terms offered exceed the average redundancy terms which most companies are offering in Ireland.
3 The Company has provided a significant amount of help to employees in terms of advisory services such as training, CV preparation, social welfare information and financial management.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court has considered the submissions of the parties in this case. It is noted that an agreement exists between the parties on redundancy terms, which was concluded in 2003. That agreement was expressed to apply to both voluntary and compulsory redundancies.
In the Court's view no sustainable argument was advanced as to why the agreement should not apply in this instance. Accordingly the Court recommends that the terms of the 2003 agreement should be applied.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Duffy
11th February, 2009______________________
DNChairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to David P Noonan, Court Secretary.