FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 26(1); INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT; 1990 PARTIES : MARTIN BUTTERLY & CO. (REPRESENTED BY IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION) - AND - UNITE DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Hayes Employer Member: Mr Murphy Worker Member: Mr Nash |
1. Redundancy terms, honouring contract of employment and pay reduction.
BACKGROUND:
2. The case before the Court concerns a claim by the Union on behalf of its members currently employed by the Company at its shipping business located at Drogheda Port. As a result of the financial downturn and the loss of major contracts, the Company is in a critical financial position and requires immediate measures to be taken in order to avoid the imminent closure of the Company. The Company is seeking redundancies and a reduced hourly rate of pay and has put forward several proposals to the Union in the form of a Survival Plan. The Union rejected the Company's proposals and negotiations could not progress at local level. On several occassions the parties engaged the Labour Relations Commission and a number of Conciliation Conferences were held. However, the parties failed to reach agreement on the issues in contention. The Company has since imposed a reduction in pay and has issued protective notice to all staff. The Union disputes this and has now initiated industrial action. The dispute was referred to the Labour Court on 22nd November, 2010, in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act 1990. Labour Court hearings took place on 3rd March, 2011, and 12th July, 2011.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Employer has unilaterally imposed a pay reduction and changes to terms and conditions of employment.
2. The Union is seeking an enhanced redundancy package for these Workers who have given years of loyal service to the Employer.
3. The Union has initiated industrial action as a result of the actions taken by the Employer.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Company is in a critical financial position. It is crucial that immediate measures are taken to avoid the closure of the Company.
2.The Union's own financial review of the Company confirmed this position.
3. The Company is seeking the immediate implementation of its Survival Plan. Failure to do so will inevitably result in the closure of the Company.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court has carefully considered the extensive oral and written submissions of both parties in this case. On the basis of those submissions the Court recommends that this dispute be settled on the following basis :-
Redundancies :-
The Court recommends that the Company increase the redundancy terms on offer to statutory entitlements plus the employer's rebate.
Volunteers :-
The Company should then seek volunteers from amongst the workforce for the four redundancies contemplated at this time either together or in stages.
Guaranteed Work :-
After giving effect to those redundancies, the Company should increase the guaranteed number of days' work for each of the remaining employees from four to six days per month.
Pay :-
The Court recommends that the hourly rate of pay be adjusted to €15 per hour for all hours worked on any five of six days Monday to Saturday worked each week. A premium of 20% should apply to all work performed on Sundays.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Brendan Hayes
20th July 2011______________________
SCDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Sharon Cahill, Court Secretary.