FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : DROMALOUR PLASTICS (REPRESENTED BY IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION) - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Ms Jenkinson Employer Member: Ms Cryan Worker Member: Mr O'Neill |
1. Redundancy Terms
BACKGROUND:
2. The Company is a plastics manufacturer based in Mallow Co. Cork with a heavy reliance on orders from the construction sector. Due to the downturn in that sector the Workers were advised that the plant would close in November, 2010 and that two of the Workers plus the plant and machinery would transfer to a sister plant based at the facility at Whites Cross. Management have offered the remaining Workers a redundancy package of two weeks pay per year of service plus statutory but the Union are seeking a more enhanced offer.
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 7th September, 2010, in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 8th October, 2010.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Company must treat these Workers in the same manner as those who made redundant recently in a number of restructuring programmes. To do otherwise would be both unequal and unfair.
2.Recent figures show that Cork has a higher than the national average rate of unemployment, therefore the opportunities for alternative employment for any of these Worker is rare.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Company is a stand alone Company which has no agreed precedent in respect of redundancy terms. Due to the economic conditions the Company is not in a financial position to grant the Union demands.
2. The Company's offer is both realistic and fair given its current financial and commercial difficulties.
RECOMMENDATION:
The case before the Court concerns the Union’s claim for an enhanced redundancy payment for 7 of its members in the process of being made redundant. Having considered the oral and written submissions of both parties, and taking account of all the circumstances in this case, the Court recommends that the Employer should pay the Workers a redundancy payment of 2.5 weeks average pay per year of service plus their statutory entitlement.
The Court so recommends.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Caroline Jenkinson
26th October, 2010______________________
JFDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to John Foley, Court Secretary.