FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : GREENSTAR LIMITED - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Ms Jenkinson Employer Member: Mr Murphy Worker Member: Mr Shanahan |
1. Redundancy Terms
BACKGROUND:
2. The Company acquired the non-hazardous waste business of Veolia Environmental Services in April 2010. One of the first steps in the integration/amalgamation process was to agree redundancy terms for Workers at its Dublin site. Terms were agreed for the Dublin site with the Union, however, the Union Branch representing the Waterford site was not involved in the negotiations in Dublin and sought more favourable rates than that paid in Dublin. It sought the more favourable terms for all categories of Workers both the existing Greenstar Employees and the new Veolia Employees in the event of compulsory redundancy being introduced in the future.
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 1st November, 2010, in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 29th April, 2011.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. There must be a distinction between voluntary and compulsory redundancy terms. The package currently on offer means that there is a diminishing ex-gratia payment for those with longer service.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The terms offered are very generous in the current economic climate where the Company is facing serious challenges in a shrinking market place.
2. Management believe that there is no basis on any grounds whatever for paying a higher amount in the future to Workers who may be made compulsorily redundant.
RECOMMENDATION:
The matter before the Court concerns the Union’s claim for enhanced redundancy terms in the event of future redundancies. The Company made 35 employees redundant in April 2010 in Dublin following the acquisition of Veolia Environmental Services and paid redundancy terms which were accepted by SIPTU following a national meeting in July 2009. The agreed terms provided for 4 weeks' pay per year of service inclusive of statutory redundancy payments capped at 65 weeks pay. These terms also applied in Dublin, Cork and Waterford in 2009.
There was some confusion at the hearing over whom the Union’s claim referred to. The Union clarified that it was seeking an enhanced redundancy package of 4 weeks' pay per year of service plus the statutory redundancy payment with no cap and that this package should apply to all workers in the Waterford plant in the event that compulsory redundancies may arise in the future.
The Union submitted that the 2009 terms should not apply in the future as it held that its Branch of the Union was not represented and therefore was not party to the meeting in Dublin in July 2009. On that basis it sought greater terms in the event of future compulsory redundancies.
The Union also sought the application of the terms submitted in this claim to redundancies which are due to take place in Bray in June 2011 which will affect up to 19 people who are members of SIPTU. The Company pointed out to the Court that the Union does not have recognition rights for these employees. It also stated that these employees will be offered redeployment options and in the event that the workers decline such options, then they will be made redundant on the 2009 terms.
Having considered the submissions before the Court, the Court can see no reason why the 2009 redundancy terms, as set out in first paragraph of this Recommendation, should not apply to those employees being made redundant in Bray in the coming months and recommends that that package should apply.
In the event of further redundancies being required in the Company the Court recommends that the parties should discuss the appropriate redundancy terms in the context of all factors pertaining at the time.
The Court so decides.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Caroline Jenkinson
19th May, 2011______________________
JFDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to John Foley, Court Secretary.