FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : ARAMARK FOOD SERVICES (REPRESENTED BY IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION) - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Duffy Employer Member: Ms Doyle Worker Member: Ms Tanham |
1. Enhanced redundancy payment.
BACKGROUND:
2. This dispute concerns a claim for enhanced redundancy for two workers. 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 1st December, 2011, in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 12th June, 2012.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3 1 The Workers both have considerable service with the Company.
2 The payment of an ex-gratia payment is the norm when compulsory redundancies take place in the contract catering sector.
3 The Company itself has recently paid an ex-gratia payment of two weeks per year of service in addition to statutory entitlement.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4 1 The Company is working very hard to maintain current employment levels.
2 The Company cannot afford to pay any ex-gratia redundancy payments to the Workers.
3. The norm in the Company is for the payment of statutory redundancy payments only.
RECOMMENDATION:
The dispute relates to the redundancy terms to be applied to two workers who were made redundant from the Company's contract at NUIG. The redundancies were effected on statutory terms only. An issue arose in the case as to whether the redundancies were compulsory or whether the claimants were offered alternative employment which they refused. The Company also contend that its normal practice is to pay statutory redundancy terms only and that the financial circumstances of the Company precluded the payment of enhanced redundancy terms.
The Union contends that the redundancies in issue were compulsory and that it is the practice in the contract catering sector to pay ex-grata redundancy terms.
It seems clear to the Court that the posts held by the Claimants were made compulsorily redundant. While other jobs were available they were not equivalent to those from which the Claimants were made redundant. In these circumstances the Court accepts that the redundancies in issue should properly be classified as compulsory.
In these circumstances the Court recommends that the Claimants be paid two weeks’ pay per year of service ex-grata in addition to the redundancy terms.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Duffy
11th July, 2012______________________
JMcCChairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Jonathan McCabe, Court Secretary.