FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : TESCO IRELAND - AND - MANDATE SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Duffy Employer Member: Ms Doyle Worker Member: Mr Nash |
1. Redundancy Terms
BACKGROUND:
2. This case concerns a dispute between Tesco and Mandate and SIPTU in relation to redundancy terms. The Union's position is that there is a long established precedent of five weeks pay per year of service uncapped inclusive of statutory entitlements. The Company position is that all chargehand grades affected can be redeployed within the Company under the new grading structures and that redundancy's are not required.
The dispute was not resolved at local level and was the subject of a number of conciliation conferences under the auspices of the Labour Relations Commission. As agreement was not reached the matter was referred to the Labour Court on 15th October 2010 in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on 11th January, 2011.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3 1 This case concerns voluntary redundancy terms which are to be applied to the chargehand grade following grade restructuring within the Company. In circumstances where redundancies apply there are agreed terms in place of five weeks pay per year of service inclusive of statutory entitlements, uncapped.
2 The Company have claimed that the dispute concerns whether a redudancy situation is appropriate in the circumstances. The Union does not accept this and is clear in its position that the matter before the Court concerns the appropriate redundancy terms to be applied.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4 1 The redundancy terms which the Union is claiming no longer applies in the Company. A subsequent redundancy offer was made for exceptional circumstances to those who did not consider re-deployment as a valid option. This offer was rejected. In such circumstances, the Company considers that all the grades can be accommodated by the Company within the new grading structures and that redundancies will not be required.
RECOMMENDATION:
The only issue before the Court concerns the terms which should apply to a voluntary redundancy package. In that regard there is an agreed and established precedent for applying a redundancy package comprising five weeks pay per year of service, inclusive of statutory terms, without any cap. The court can see no reason as to why that precedent should not continue to apply.
Having taken full account of the submissions made by the Company concerning the continuance of this arrangement, including the letter sent by the Company to the Union in April 2009, a copy of which was furnished to the Court after the hearing, the Court cannot accept that the established redundancy formula was ever validly terminated.
Accordingly the Court does not recommends any change to the established package.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Duffy
26th January 2011______________________
AHChairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Andrew Heavey, Court Secretary.