FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : BASF/IBC ADMIXTURE SYSTEMS LTD - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Hayes Employer Member: Ms Cryan Worker Member: Ms Ni Mhurchu |
1. Enhanced Redundancy Terms.
BACKGROUND:
2. The case before the Court concerns the Union's claim for enhanced redundancy terms on behalf of four of its members previously employed at the Company's production facility located in Baldoyle, Dublin. The Company manufactured admixture and chemical products for sale and supply primarily to construction companies. As a result of the downturn in the Construction Industry and in the economy as a whole, the Company experienced significant trading difficulties and in February 2012 the Company ceased operations in its Baldoyle location. The Workers involved received a redundancy package consisting of statutory entitlements only. It is the Union's claim that the Company has acted outside of the industry norm by not offering enhanced redundancy terms to the Workers. The Union is currently seeking an ex-gratia payment to reflect the Workers' length of service. The Employer rejects the Union's claim arguing that the Workers have been treated in the same manner as all other affected employees in the Company. The Employer further contends that it is not in a position to fund an enhanced redundancy package.
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 29th February, 2012 in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 15th June 2012.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Workers have given many years loyal service to the Employer and are seeking an enhanced redundancy payment to reflect this.
2. Companies within the sector have funded redundancy packages of up to six weeks' pay per year of service. The Employer has acted outside of the industry norm by offering statutory entitlements only.
3. The Employer is in a position to fund an enhanced redundancy package.
EMPLOYER'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Workers have been treated in a fair and consistent manner and in line with previous redundancies carried out in the Company.
2. The Employer has experienced significant financial difficulties and is not in a position to offer anything above statutory entitlements.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court has carefully considered the submissions of both parties to this dispute.
Taking all of the circumstances into account the Court recommends that the Company pay the Workers concerned two weeks' pay per year of service in addition to their statutory entitlement.
The Court so recommends.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Brendan Hayes
3rd July 2012______________________
SCDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Sharon Cahill, Court Secretary.