FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : PARK DEVELOPMENTS (DUBLIN) LIMITED (REPRESENTED BY CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY FEDERATION) - AND - BUILDING AND ALLIED TRADES UNION SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Ms Jenkinson Employer Member: Mr Murphy Worker Member: Ms Tanham |
1. Enhanced redundancy package.
BACKGROUND:
2. The case before the Court concerns a dispute between the Employer and the Unions on behalf of eight of their members previously employed as carpenters, bricklayers and construction operatives in the housing sector of the construction industry. In December, 2010 as a result of the Employer's worsening financial position and the downturn in the economy and particularly in the housing sector, six of the Claimants were made redundant receiving statutory entitlements only. The remaining two Claimants faced redundancy in August, 2011. It is the Unions' claim that the Employer, despite the current economic climate, remains profitable and is in a financial position to offer an enhanced redundancy package reflecting the years of service given to them by these Claimants. The Unions are therefore seeking an enhanced redundancy package comprising of two weeks' pay per year of service in addition to statutory entitlements. The Employer rejects the Unions' claim and contends that it is not in a position to concede to any cost-increasing claim. The Employer further contends that it no longer maintains complete control of its finances and at present is operating under the supervision of the National Asset Management Agency (NAMA). The Employer maintains that the payment of an enhanced redundancy package would not be permitted under any circumstance by NAMA. The dispute could not be resolved locally and was the subject of a hearing by the Construction Industry Disputes Tribunal (CIDT), however, the parties could not reach agreement.
As the issue remained unresolved the parties agreed to engage further by means of a Conciliation Conference held under the auspices of the Labour Relations Commission. As agreement was not reached, the dispute was referred to the Labour Court on the 21st June 2011, in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 13th October, 2011.
UNIONS' ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Claimants have given many years of loyal service to the Employer and are seeking an enhanced redundancy package to reflect this.
2. The Unions contend that enhanced redundancy packages have previously been paid by the Employer and within the construction sector as a whole.
3. The Unions are of theview that the Employer remains to be a profitable company and can afford to offer an enhanced redundancy payment to the Claimants.
EMPLOYER'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Employer is not in a financial position to offer an enhanced redundancy package in addition to the substantive redundancy payments already paid to the Claimants.
2. Concession of the Unions' claim could lead to further financial implications for the Employer with the possibility of the creation of knock-on claims from all other previous employees that faced redundancy.
3.The Employer is continuing to operate under the management of NAMA on the condition that costs are not increased. The Employer asserts that cost-increasing claims will not be permitted by NAMA and therefore it has no alternative other than to deny the Unions' claim.
RECOMMENDATION:
- The matter before the Court concerns the Unions’ claim for an enhanced redundancy package on behalf of six workers made redundant in December 2010 and two workers made redundant in August 2011. Statutory redundancy terms have already been paid to each of the workers concerned, all of whom have very long service.
The Company rejected the Unions’ claim on the basis of its current very serious financial difficulties brought about due to the significant reduction in its business. It stated that it has been severely impacted by the current economic difficulties, is struggling to survive and it is currently operating under the auspices of NAMA. Therefore, it was not in a position to pay over and above the statutory redundancy terms.
Having taken into account the arguments made by both sides the Court recommends that the Company should pay an ex-gratia redundancy payment to the workers concerned with this claim. The Court recommends a payment of two weeks’ pay per year of service, capped at €600 per week, in addition to the statutory redundancy payments already paid. Due to the Company’s financial circumstances the Court recommends that the recommended ex-gratia payment should be paid in three equal instalments, the first payment should be paid to the workers on 1st December 2011, the second on 1st June 2012 and the third and final payment should be paid on 1st January 2013.
The Court so recommends.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Caroline Jenkinson
3rd November 2011______________________
SCDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Sharon Cahill, Court Secretary.