FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 20(2), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : WINCANTON IRELAND (REPRESENTED BY IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION) - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Hayes Employer Member: Mr Murphy Worker Member: Mr Nash |
1. Redundancy terms
BACKGROUND:
2. The case before the Court concerns a claim by the Union on behalf of its members employed by the Company as distribution drivers serving a contract held with an external liquid fuel provider. The dispute is in relation to redundancy terms. The Company, on behalf of its external customer, has notified the Union of the requirement to immediately reduce the number of staff by two in order to reduce operating costs and is offering a redundancy package of 2.5 weeks' pay per year of service based on basic plus shift pay in addition to statutory entitlements. The Union is seeking enhanced redundancy terms of 4.5 weeks' pay per year of service in addition to the application of a 2007 agreement providing for statutory entitlements and a lump sum payment relative to the number of years of service involved. The Union is also seeking that this package be offered primarily on a voluntary basis and should set a precedent for future redundancies that may occur in the Company. The Company disputes this and is not willing to concede to the Union's claim to alter the terms of the redundancy package offered.
The dispute could not be resolved at a local level and as per an agreement reached between the parties in 2010 under the auspices of the Labour Relations Commission, on the 10th March 2011 the dispute was referred to the Labour Court in accordancewith Section 20(2) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969. The Company and the Union agreed to be bound by the Court's Recommendation.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Company has previously offered greater redundancy packages and should continue to do so in these circumstances.
2. The Company is operating outside of industry norms by offering a reduced redundancy package.
3. The Company's reluctance to enhance the terms of the redundancy package is unduly delaying the process. The Union contends that the redundancies sought by the Company will be accepted on a voluntary basis if the previously agreed package is offered.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The redundancy terms offered by the Company in this instance exceed the terms of packages offered with regard to some of its other contracts.
2. The Company contends that in the current economic climate the terms of the redundancy package offered remain generous.
3. Concession of the Union's claim may lead to further implications for the Company including the loss of the current contract it holds with this specific customer.
RECOMMENDATION:
As the case was referred to the Court pursuant to Section 20(2) of the Industrial Relations Act both parties agreed to be bound by the outcome.
The Court notes that the claim relates to redundancy terms in respect of two drivers employed on a named contract that is managed by the Company. The Court's Recommendation on the appropriate redundancy terms therefore is confined to this specific issue and has no wider or more general application.
Whilst it was clear from the submissions of both parties that there is a downward trend emerging in the level of redundancy settlement that applies in the liquid fuel distribution sector it is not yet sufficiently well established to negate the terms of the agreement in place between the parties. Accordingly, the Court recommends that the two redundancies involved in this dispute be paid in terms that have been applied to this group since 2007.
The Court notes, however, that following these two redundancies, the 2007 agreement will, if these trends take hold, be out of line with the prevailing norms in the industry. Accordingly, the Court recommends that the parties meet at an appropriate time and agree a replacement agreement in respect of any foreseeable redundancies that may be required in the operation of this contract. If the parties fail to reach agreement the matter may be referred back to the Labour Court for a definitive Recommendation on the substantive issue.
The Court so recommends.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Brendan Hayes
11th May 2011______________________
SCDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Sharon Cahill, Court Secretary.