FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : WILLIAAM COX (REPRESENTED BY CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY FEDERATION) - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Ms Jenkinson Employer Member: Ms Doyle Worker Member: Ms Ni Mhurchu |
1. Redundancy package financial terms.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Company is a market leader in architectural glazing and cladding and currently employs 116 Workers directly, however this number will reduce significantly over the coming months as a number of projects including the Cloverhill project are due to end. The Company is reducing staffing levels across all grades and disciplines in order to survive and the issue of enhanced redundancy payments requires agreement between the parties.
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 19th October, 2010, in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990.
A Labour Court hearing took place on the 14th January, 2011.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Union is seeking an enhanced package of six weeks per year of service as per the 1984 agreement.
2. The Workers if made redundant are unlikely to gain employment again in the immediate future and an enhanced package may alleviate some of the financial hardship caused by job losses.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. It is the custom and practice within the Company and the construction industry in general to pay a statutory lump sum payment only, which has risen significantly through national agreements.
2. The collapse of the construction industry has led to the Company downsizing and considering its future plans and business model. The Company is not in a position to adsorb any additional financial burden.
RECOMMENDATION:
The matter before the Court concerns the Union’s claim for an enhanced redundancy package for those Workers being made redundant at this time.
The Union sought application of a package, which had been agreed in 1984, i.e. three times the statutory redundancy payment. The Company rejected the Union’s claim stating that due to the current economic climate and in particular due to the major decline in the construction sector, it was not in a position to pay over and above the statutory terms.
The Court notes that in 2009/2010 a number of Workers were made redundant and were paid statutory redundancy payment plus one week’s pay at the statutory ceiling per year of service. Furthermore, the Court notes that this latter severance package was included in an agreement arrived at following Conciliation at the Labour Relations Commission on a matrix for selecting Workers in the event of lay-offs.
Therefore, the Court recommends that the severance package that applied to Workers’ being made redundant in 2009/2010 should continue to apply to those being made redundant at this time.
The Court so recommends.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Caroline Jenkinson
25th January, 2011______________________
JFDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to John Foley, Court Secretary.