FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : GILMARTINS CASH & CARRY (REPRESENTED BY IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION) - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Hayes Employer Member: Ms Cryan Worker Member: Ms Ni Mhurchu |
1. Extra - Statutory Redundancy
BACKGROUND:
2. This case concerns a dispute between the Company and Union in relation to extra statutory redundancy payments. The Union's position is that given the long service of the workers and their loyalty to the Company over many years, they should be paid additional redundancy payments in excess of statutory entitlements. Management's position is that its business has sufferd greatly in recent times and the payment of any additional redundancy payments is totally prohibitive and unsustainable.
The dispute was not 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 matter was referred to the Labour Court on 15th Novemer, 2010 in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on 5th April, 2011.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3 1 The workers accepted redundancy as a cost saving measure which would ultimately lead to the viability of the business going forward. Other staff with less service received enhanced redundancy packages and it is fair and reasonable for an enhancement in this case also.
2 There were other redundancies within the sector that provided for additional payments to the workers. In this situation, where the workers have made great sacrifices for the Company, they should be compensated accordingly.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4 1 Concession of this claim will inevitably lead to the closure of the business. In recent times many independent retailers, which are this Company's sole customer base, have ceased trading and any further costs will be unsustainable
2 The Company's finances and operating costs are under strict scrutiny at the present time. It is simply the case that the Company cannot afford to continue in business if there are additional costs forced pon it.
RECOMMENDATION:
Having carefully considered the submissions of both parties the Court, noting the long service of the claimants and the difficult trading circumstances of the company, recommends that this dispute be settled by the payment of an enhanced redundancy lump sum in the following amounts to each of the claimants
Ms A with 36 years service €9,000
Mr B with 25 years service €7,000
Ms C with 22.5 years service €4,000
These amounts take into account the different levels of salary that apply in each case.
The monies should be paid within two months of the date of this recommendation.
The Court so recommends.+
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Brendan Hayes
3rd May 2011______________________
AHDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Andrew Heavey, Court Secretary.