FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 20(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : KILSARAN GROUP - AND - 90 WORKERS (REPRESENTED BY SIPTU / UNITE) DIVISION : Chairman: Ms Jenkinson Employer Member: Ms Doyle Worker Member: Ms Ni Mhurchu |
1. Various Issues
BACKGROUND:
2. The Company manufactures concrete construction materials and employes 289 people at 16 sites in the Leinster area. In 1994 an Agreement was reached which provided for negotiated changes in terms and conditions of employment between the Union (SIPTU) and Management. When lay-offs, short time working and redundancies were required in 2008 the Unions asserted that the Company had not engaged directly with its officials and therefore was in breach of the agreement with it's 'Re-structuring Proposals'. In November 2008 the Unions referred a number of issues to the LRC including the claim that the selection for redundancy was an 'ad hoc' process. Management rejected the Unions' assertions.
On the 11th November, 2010 the Unions referred the issue to the Labour Court, in accordance with Section 20(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 27th January, 2011.
Both Unions agreed to be bound by the Court’s Recommendation.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. Overtime premium payments and attendance bonus were unilaterally reduced without any engagement with the Unions.The application and retrospection of all phases of T2016 should not be further delayed. The company has money to invest in everything other than their Employees rate of pay.
2. Regarding redundancy terms, the Unions are seeking 3 weeks pay per year of service plus allowances plus statutory entitlements.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Company is operating in extremely difficult market conditions and has been for some time. There have been dramatic reductions in turnover for the financial years 2008, 2009 and 2010. The accumulated fall in turnover is estimated to be in the region of between 65% and 70%.
2. A consistent redundancy selection criteria approach is taken, which is objective, fair, reasonable and in accordance with the 1994 Company / Union Agreement.
RECOMMENDATION:
The matters referred to the Court under Section 20(1) of The Industrial Relations Act, 1969 concerned re-structuring issues taking place at the Company’s various sites. The Unions submitted that the issues concerned lay-offs, short-time working, redundancy terms and selection procedures.
The Court notes that the matters of lay-offs and short-time working, were the subject of an agreement between the Company and SIPTU in 1994, where it was agreed that in the event that short-time, lay-offs or redundancies became necessary, the Company reserved the right, in accordance with it’s established practice, to determine those selected, having regard to such factors as ability, service, conduct, time keeping, attendance and aptitude within agreed categories. The Agreement also stated that the Company should engage in consultation with the Union and in the event of disagreement regarding the Company’s selection the matter may be referred to the agreed industrial relations procedures. The Agreement is silent on redundancy severance entitlements.
Having considered the submissions of both parties the Court accepts that the Company’s selection process appears to have complied with the 1994 Agreement, however, the Court finds that the Company breached the Agreement when it failed to consult with the Unions in respect of such situations arising in the period 2008 – 2010.
It appears that prior to 2008 negotiations took place with the Unions whenever a redundancy situation arose and agreement was reached on payments above the statutory redundancy. However, since 2008 the Company had departed from that practice and it has dealt directly with individual employees, without involvement of the Unions.
The Court recommends that in the event of short-time, lay-offs and/or redundancies arising in the future, the Company must comply with the 1994 Agreement and in line with traditional practice, the Company should negotiate with the Unions concerned in relation to any claims made for an enhanced redundancy severance package.
The Court so Recommends.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Caroline Jenkinson
17th February, 2011______________________
JFDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to John Foley, Court Secretary.