FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : JOHN PAUL CONSTRUCTION (REPRESENTED BY CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY FEDERATION) - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Duffy Employer Member: Mr Murphy Worker Member: Ms Ni Mhurchu |
1. Redundancy Package, Call-Back For Staff Made Redundant, Layoff
BACKGROUND:
2. The issues before the Court concerns the redundancy package offered to employees of the Company and call back for staff made redundant. The Company is a general building contractor. Due to the downturn in the Construction Industry, the Company placed a number of workers on temporary lay off during late 2009. The criteria for lay off was on a last in first out basis. The matter was referred to the Construction Industry Disputes Tribunal (CIDT) by the Union. In its Decision the CIDT awarded one week pay plus statutory entitlements to employees made redundant. Workers on temporary layoff could apply for redundancy. The Union were unhappy with this ruling as the number of people on temporary layoff was increasing and due to the continuing decline in the construction industry these were in fact redundancies. The Company's position is that it is adhering to custom and practice and the CIDT decision with regard to selection procedures and lay off payments.
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 28th April, 2010 in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 28th May, 2010.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1 The Union is seeking enhanced redundancy terms in line with agreements reached within the industry in recent years. Workers made redundant are unlikely to gain employment again in the immediate future and enhanced terms may alleviate some of the hardship caused by job losses going forward.
2 The Union is seeking that where grades of work normally carried out by General Operatives becomes available within the Company within 12 months of this agreement, this work will be offered to the employees who have been made redundant..
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1 The Company is experiencing a substantial downturn in activity. The Company has no option but to place some of its general operatives on temporary layoff in line with agreed procedures. When operatives on temporary layoff seek their redundancy payment the Company pays statutory entitlements, pay in lieu of notice and an additional two weeks pay. To advance additional payments would place a financial burden on the Company. Workers who opt for redundancy terminate all links with the Company.
2 Concessions of additional demands of the Union over a binding CIDT decision could have a knock-on effect on the construction industry in general.
RECOMMENDATION:
Having considered the submissions of the parties the Court recommends as follows in relation to the issues in dispute:-
Redundancy terms
The Court notes that in their most recent discussions the parties made significant progress towards resolving this issue. The Court recommends that the Company improve its offer to one of two weeks pay per year of service, capped at €600 per week, plus statutory terms. This should be accepted by the Union on the strict understanding that it will not constitute a precedent nor will it be relied upon as constituting any form of norm within the Construction Industry generally.
Recall
The Court recommends that the Union should accept the Company's position regarding the recall of workers made redundant.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Duffy
17th June, 2010______________________
DNChairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to David P Noonan, Court Secretary.