FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : FEDERAL SECURITY NEWCO LIMITED (REPRESENTED BY MANAGEMENT SUPPORT SERVICES (IRELAND) LTD) - AND - 21 SECURITY GUARDS (REPRESENTED BY SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION) DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Duffy Employer Member: Ms Doyle Worker Member: Mr Nash |
1. Redundancy Terms
BACKGROUND:
2. The Company provides security at the Flextronics site in Limerick which will close on 15th January 2010 leaving the remaining 16 security guards redundant. The dispute concerns the amount of redundancy that should be offered by the Company however both parties have agreed that any agreement on an enhanced redundancy package must also include the 5 security guards already made redundant last year.
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 the 21st September, 2009, in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990.
A Labour Court hearing took place on the 7th January, 2010.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Union is seeking an additional redundancy payment of two weeks per year of service, similar to what colleagues at the adjacent site received last year.
2. There is precedent for an enhanced redundancy package above statutory within the Security Industry.
3. The Company is the largest security provider in the country and cannot shirk their responsibility to our members who have given good service to the various Employers over the years.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Company was reimbursed in full by the customer for the 2 weeks ex-gratia payment to security staff working on the adjacent site.
2. The company has recently gone through the process of receivership and was rescued, it is not in a financial position to make redundancy payments of an ex-gratia nature.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court is satisfied that there are exceptional factors in this case which should be taken into account in considering the Union’s claim. These relate to the fact that employees of the same employer performing identical duties on an adjacent site recently received enhanced redundancy terms in similar circumstances to those pertaining in this case. While the Court accepts that the Company was in a position to recoup the costs involved in the case of the other site, the payments made did create a legitimate expectation that other could be similarly treated.
On the strict understanding that the terms of this recommendation will not be regarded as forming any form of precedent in this Company or in the contracting security sector generally, the Court recommends that having regard to the exceptional factors referred to, each employee being made redundant should, in addition to statutory redundancy terms, be paid a lump sum equivalent to the rebate payable from the redundancy fund in his or her case.
The Court regards the question of norms in terms of redundancy arrangements within the sector as a matter to be decided at the level of the industry through the established negotiating machinery. The Court would urge the parties to use that machinery if the questions of establishing such norms should again arise.
For the reasons already referred to, this Recommendation is made having regard to the special and exceptional circumstances pertaining in this case. It should not be cited or relied upon by any party in support of any other claim in this or any other employment.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Duffy
11th January, 2010______________________
JFChairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to John Foley, Court Secretary.