FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : G4S CASH SERVICES (SECURICOR) LIMITED - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Ms Jenkinson Employer Member: Ms Doyle Worker Member: Mr Nash |
1. Redundancy terms.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Company is the largest provider of security services in Ireland and employees over 3,000 staff nationwide. The manner in which the Company operates the cash in transit service is regulated by the Technical Operational Requirements document (TOR) published by the Private Security Authority and the Garda Technical Advisory Group. The Wexford depot did not meet the criteria as set out in the TOR specifications and both staff were given the option upon its closure to either transfer to the Waterford depot or seek redundancy. The Claimant, due to compelling personal reasons decided to pursue the redundancy option but both he and Management could not agree on the package.
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 9th March, 20109, in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990.
A Labour Court hearing took place on the 23rd June, 2010.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Worker has worked for the Company in the cash services division since 1979 and has considered the Wexford depot his work base, if he were to relocate to the Waterford depot it would add two additional hours to his travel time on a daily basis. Due to personal domestic circumstances this could never be considered as reasonable.
2. Given that this case could be deemed as constituting a compulsory redundancy situation, a enhanced package reflecting this should be offered to the Claimant.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Company had no other option but to close the Wexford depot, the reason for the closure were not of the Company's making as they are compelled to adhere with the new TOR regulations.
2. The Claimant alone selected the option of termination, the Company cannot treat him any differently to the other 100 staff that have been made redundant and who have accepted the same package on offer.
RECOMMENDATION:
The claim before the Court is on behalf of a Worker made redundant in August 2009 and concerns redundancy payment terms. The Union sought an enhanced redundancy payment over and above the agreed formula as the Worker had no choice but to accept redundancy when the Company moved its operation from Wexford to Waterford.
The Court notes that there are agreed redundancy terms in place, agreed nationally with the Union, which applied to 100 other Employees made redundant within the Company.
Having considered the submissions of both sides the Court sees no justification for departing from the nationally agreed terms with the Union and consequently rejects the claim.
The Court so recommends.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Caroline Jenkinson
16th July, 2010______________________
JFDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to John Foley, Court Secretary.