FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 20(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : COASTAL CONTAINER LINE LTD ( MARINE TERMINALS LTD, PEEL PORTS LTD) - AND - THREE NAMED WORKERS (REPRESENTED BY SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION) DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Hayes Employer Member: Ms Cryan Worker Member: Mr Shanahan |
1. Severance Pay Terms.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Three Workers concerned in this dispute were employees of Coastal Line Terminal Containers Ltd/ Marine Terminals Ltd., both of which are part of the Peel Ports Group.
The Workers concerned were of a clerical grade within the Company and had employment service ranging from eight to ten years.
On 8th February 2011 letters were left on the desk of the MTL Accountant. These were subsequently distributed and related to restructuring and invited requests for voluntary redundancy.
On 28th February 2011 further correspondence issued with the Company seeking consultation meetings with each employee. The first consultations took place on the 10th March 2011 where the General Manager stressed no decision was taken but various options were being considered.
The next meeting was held six days later on the 16th March 2011 and at this meeting the Company served notice to shocked employees and all were given dates of termination weeks earlier than the expiry of their minimum notice. Only the basic statutory redundancy entitlement was paid.
Efforts to secure further local meetings were denied and the usage of the Labour Relations Commission was also refused by the Company.
The Union referred the claim to the Labour Court on the 27th June 2011, in accordance with Section 20 (1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969 and agreed to be bound by the Court's recommendation. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 13th October 2011.
The Company did not attend the hearing but sent a letter which was read into the record of the Court.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Union maintains that the Workers need the support of a severance payment beyond the basic statutory entitlement.
2. The Union is seeking a payment of five weeks per year of service inclusive of the statutory entitlement.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Company maintains, in its letter, that it is forecast to make a loss of around £1.5 million this year and given that position are unable to enhance the severance payments already received by the Workers concerned.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court notes that the Company chose not to attend the hearing but did make a written submission setting out its position in the matter. The Court took this submission into account when making this recommendation.
The Court, having considered the submissions of both parties in this dispute, notes that circumstances have changed since it issued LCR 19661 and accordingly, recommends that the three Workers concerned be paid an enhanced severance payment of 5 weeks pay per year of service inclusive of statutory entitlements in full and final settlement of this dispute.
The Court so recommends.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Brendan Hayes
17th October, 2011______________________
MG.Deputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Madelon Geoghegan, Court Secretary.