FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : BERU ELECTRONICS (REPRESENTED BY IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION) - AND - SIPTU (TRALEE) SIPTU (APT BRANCH) DIVISION : Chairman: Ms Jenkinson Employer Member: Ms Doyle Worker Member: Ms Ni Mhurchu |
1. Redundancy terms and selection criteria.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Company is involved in the production of a variety of products for the automotive industry. All items manufactured are exported. The Company is part of a German company Beru Electronics GmBH which was recently acquired by the American company BorgWarner. The parent company initially opted to close the Tralee plant but eventually decided to accept a proposal involving 85 redundancies. In May, 2009, the Company sought approximately 20 redundancies and made an offer of 6 weeks' pay per year of service , inclusive of statutory redundancy. In the event these redundancies did not take place. When the Company announced in November, 2009, that, because of the global downturn in business , it would need 85 redundancies the Unions stated that the May, 2009, offer of 6 weeks' pay per year of service would be the least that they would accept. The Company stated that its offer was now 2 weeks' pay per year of service plus statutory. It also wanted to use a "skills retention assessment form" as the selection process in determining those retained and those made redundant. The Unions rejected the proposals and, following a branch meeting, increased their demand to 10 weeks' pay per year of service inclusive of statutory plus the same conditions as applied in May, 2009, i.e. voluntary redundancy followed by last-in, first-out (LIFO).
The dispute was referred to the Labour Relations Commission (LRC) and a conciliation conference took place. As the parties did not reach agreement, the dispute was referred to the Labour Court on the 16th December, 2009, in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 5th March, 2010.
UNIONS' ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. A redundancy scheme was agreed at the LRC in May, 2009, and the Company cannot now justify offering lesser conditions than that agreement.
2. The Company has engaged in a cynical exercise from the outset with a grave misuse of procedures e.g. the skills retention form. It failed to engage with the Unions at the LRC on 14th December, 2009.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Company has found itself in a very difficult trading situation for the last 18 month in particular.
2. The financial package restraints for the severance package were made by the parent company and, as a result, the Company cannot offer more that it did in December, 2009.
3. Conceding the Unions' claim would have a serious knock-on effect across the Company.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court has considered the positions of both parties as expressed in their oral and written submissions. In the context of the Company’s economic circumstances pertaining at the moment and in recognition of its need to retain key skills in order to attract new products the Court recommends that the Union should accept the selection procedures for redundancy as devised by the Company.
Furthermore, the Court recommends that the Company should improve its ex-gratia redundancy payment offer to six week’s pay per year of service inclusive of statutory redundancy payment.
The Court so recommends.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Caroline Jenkinson
11th March, 2010______________________
CONDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Ciaran O'Neill, Court Secretary.