FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : BURNSIDE HYDRACYL (BALLYMOON) LIMITED - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Hayes Employer Member: Mr Doherty Worker Member: Mr Nash |
1. Redundancy terms.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Company manufactures heavy hydraulic cylinders for industrial and agriculture use, both for the home and export market. This is the first time in its 37 year history that the issue of compulsory redundancy has arisen and is due to the downturn in markets worldwide. This case concerns 3 Workers who were made redundant in July 2009 and paid their statutory entitlements. The Union tried on their behalf to negotiate an enhanced package with Management but were unable to find a mutually acceptable agreement.
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 1st October, 2009, in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 10th March, 2010.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
2. 1. An enhanced redundancy package would encourage volunteers to come forward. The Union understands that in order to retain skill sets, it may be necessary not to operate on a LIFO system and Management have a right to choose whatever course they deem necessary.
2. The Union is seeking an enhanced package not only for the 3 Workers involved in this case but also for any compulsory redundancies that may take place in the future.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Company has complied with its statutory obligation in paying the 3 Workers their statutory entitlements. The Company cannot afford to pay anything above this sum as things currently stand.
2. However, with increased cost reductions at the Plant coupled with an increase in productivity, this could result in savings that could potentially be off-set against a small increase in the redundancy package.
RECOMMENDATION:
- The Court recommends that a redundancy offer of 4 weeks pay per year of service inclusive of statutory entitlement would represent a fair and reasonable framework for the resolution of the cost and efficiency issues facing the Company.
- In this context the Court is satisfied that the offer of statutory entitlement plus a lump sum of €1,000 to each of three named employees who were the subject of this dispute represents the rough equivalent of the recommendation outlined in Paragraph 1 above. Accordingly, the Court further recommends that the Union should accept that offer in respect of the three Workers affected.
- Any further redundancies should be dealt with in accordance with Paragraph 1 above.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Brendan Hayes
31st March, 2010______________________
JFDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to John Foley, Court Secretary.