FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : CARILLION IRISHENCO LIMITED - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Ms Jenkinson Employer Member: Mr Murphy Worker Member: Ms Tanham |
1. Enhanced redundancy terms.
BACKGROUND:
2. The case before the Court concerns a dispute between the Employer and the Union on behalf of its members in relation to an enhanced redundancy package. The dispute relates specifically to nineteen employees who were made redundant from the Civil Engineering Division of the Company in September 2011, receiving a redundancy package consisting of statutory entitlements only. The Union on behalf of its members is currently seeking an enhanced redundancy package of two weeks' pay per year of service over and above the statutory entitlements paid. The Union contends that the Employer is highly profitable and is in a position to offer enhanced redundancy terms to its members. The Employer rejects the Union's claim, arguing that it is in a loss-making situation and cannot concede the Union's cost-increasing claim. The Employer asserts that due to the worsening economic situation and a significant downturn in the volume of business it had no alternative other than to cease trading in September 2011 making all employees redundant. The Facilities Management Division of the Company continues to operate however the Employer is of the view that concession of the Union's claim would have a detrimental effect on the viability of the Facilities Management operation. The Employer further asserts that there is no funding available to offer a redundancy package in excess of statutory entitlements.
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 14th February, 2012 in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 18th May, 2012.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Employer has carried out work on many high-profile civil engineering and construction projects and remains in a profitable state.
2. The Employer is operating outside of industry norms by offering statutory redundancy payments only.
3. The Employer is in a financial position to fund an enhanced redundancy package.
EMPLOYER'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Company is a stand-alone entity and the Civil Engineering Division of the Company has ceased trading since September 2011. There are no further funds available to offer enhanced redundancy terms.
2. Concession of the Union's claim would significantly impact the operation of the Facilities Management Division of the Company.
3.As a gesture of goodwill the Company offered an ex-gratia payment to the Claimants however, it was refused.
RECOMMENDATION:
The matter before the Court concerns the Union’s claim for an enhanced redundancy package on behalf of nineteen workers made redundant between September 2011 and May 2012. The Company paid statutory redundancy terms and offered an ex-gratia lump sum of €800 per person. The Union sought redundancy terms in line with those paid in similar industries and referred to Labour Court Recommendations No: LCR19535, LCR19836, LCR19867 and LCR199882.
The Company rejected the Union’s claim stating that the Civil Engineering Division of the Company had to cease operations since October 2011 and Carillion Irishenco had suffered serious losses.
Having considered the submissions of both sides the Court recommends that the Company should pay an ex-gratia redundancy payment to the nineteen Claimants of two weeks’ pay per year of service, capped at €600 per week, in addition to the statutory redundancy payments already paid.
The Court so recommends.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Caroline Jenkinson
28th May 2012______________________
SCDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Sharon Cahill, Court Secretary.