FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : LOGSTRUP (IRL) LTD (REPRESENTED BY PURDY FITZGERALD SOLICITORS) - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION UNITE DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Duffy Employer Member: Ms Doyle Worker Member: Ms Tanham |
1. Redundancy Terms & Selection
BACKGROUND:
2. This dispute, which arose from the Company's decision to transfer a substantial amount of its production to its parent company in Denmark, concerns a claim for enhanced redundancy for Workers who will lose their job as a result of this decision. This 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 27th March, 2012, in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 14th June, 2012.
UNIONS' ARGUMENTS:
3 1 The Workers have given many years of loyal and dedicated service to the Company.
2 The Workers are being made redundant because the Company is transferring their work abroad.
3 The payment of enhanced redundancy is the norm in the manufacturing sector.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4 1 The Company took this decision in an attempt to retain customers and protect remaining staff.
2 The Company does not pay enhanced redundancy in any country where it operates.
3. Concession of this claim would put further jobs at peril.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court notes that the principle argument advanced by the Company in opposing the Unions' claim is that it does not pay enhanced redundancy in any jurisdiction in which it operates. The Court must, however, have regard to the fact that in this jurisdiction the practice of paying enhanced redundancy is so well-established in industrial relations that it can now properly be regarded as the norm. This position has been consistently reflected in the Recommendations of this Court. The Court cannot see any reasonable basis upon which it should take a different position in this case.
Having regard to all the circumstances of the case the Court recommends that the Company offer an ex-gratia payment of 2.5 weeks pay per year of service in addition to the statutory entitlements and that this be accepted by the Unions.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Duffy
11th July, 2012______________________
JMcCDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Jonathan McCabe, Court Secretary.