FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : CONNACHT GOLD (REPRESENTED BY IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION) - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Ms Jenkinson Employer Member: Ms Cryan Worker Member: Ms Ni Mhurchu |
1. Hearing Arising From LCR No.19821
BACKGROUND:
2. The issue before the Court concerns an agreed redundancy package between the parties. The issue was previously the subject of a Labour Court hearing in May 2010 and resulted in Labour Court Recommendation No. 19821. It is the Employer's position that the previously agreed Redundancy package was designed in a different economic climate and is not sustainable now. It is seeking a package of four weeks pay per year of service inclusive of Statutory entitlements and capped at a maximum of 2 years salary. The Employer also points out that there are no redundancies or restructuring contemplated at the moment. The Union are seeking the Court to re-affirm LCR No.19821 as nothing has changed and there are no current plans for redundancies.
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 24th November, 2010 in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 22nd February, 2011.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1 The Union is seeking that the financial benefits of the existing redundancy package is not depleted.
2 The imposition of the proposed cap on redundancy payments would be to the detriment of the longest serving workers.
3 The Union cannot agree to the destruction of our agreed terms at a time when no redundancies are in place and no need has been established for the change suggested.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1 The current redundancy package is not affordable and if implemented has the potential to adversely affect the financial stability of the organisation.
2 Many of the workers have substantial service and the potential cost of the current package is prohibitive.
3 Management believes that a cap is necessary to give stability and reality to the potential cost if the need for restructuring arises.
RECOMMENDATION:
The case before the Court is a follow on from Labour Court Recommendation No: 19821 concerning the terms of the Company’s redundancy package. The Court recommended that the parties should enter negotiations with a view to reaching agreement in line with a previous Labour Court Recommendation – LCR No: 18139. In LCR No: 19821 the Court recommended that:
- “….the parties should seek to agree on a new package providing for a less complicated formula on the calculation of redundancy terms. They should also avoid any provisions which could give rise to discrimination on grounds of age.Should the parties fail to reach agreement the matter may be referred back to the Court.”
The Court notes that these discussions have concentrated on harmonising and simplifying the pre-existing packages and with avoiding any provisions, which could give rise to discrimination on grounds of age.
The Court also notes that there are no redundancies contemplated at present. In such circumstances and in the current economic climate the Court is of the view that it would be not be appropriate to make a recommendation on the level of redundancy terms which should apply in the event that such becomes necessary in the future. Accordingly, the Court recommends that the matter should be revisited if and when redundancies arise.
The Court so recommends.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Caroline Jenkinson
14th March, 2011______________________
DNDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to David P Noonan, Court Secretary.