FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 20(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : GRAFTON MERCHANTING ROI LTD - AND - A WORKER (REPRESENTED BY SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION) DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Hayes Employer Member: Ms Doyle Worker Member: Ms Ni Mhurchu |
1. Payment of Agreed Redundancy Terms of 95 Weeks.
BACKGROUND:
2. The issue before the Court concerns a claim by the Union on behalf of its member for the payment of 95 weeks redundancy as agreed between the Company and the Union. The Worker was employed with the Company for over 29 years. Following a downturn in the construction industry in late 2007, the Company sought measures to reduce costs and overheads. The continuing decline in sales in 2008 resulted in the need for redundancies. On 24th February, 2011 the Worker concerned was made redundant. It is the Union's argument that the Worker is entitled to the redundancy terms of 95 weeks as negotiated between the Union and the Company. The Company reject this claim on the basis that a new redundancy package agreement was established with the Union by letter of 7th July, 2009. This resulted in a redundancy payment for the worker of 3.5 weeks pay per year of service plus statutory redundancy and inclusive of pay in lieu of notice with a cap of €80,000.
On the 25th November, 2011 the Union referred the issue to the labour Court, in accordance with Section 20(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 28th February, 2012.
The Union agreed to be bound by the Court's Recommendation
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1 The Union confirmed the redundancy terms of 95 weeks as agreed between the parties in December, 2008 by way of letter to management on 20th May, 2009. These are the terms that should apply to the Worker. No further agreement on redundancy was agreed between the parties.
2 The Workers claim was reiterated at the Labour Relations Commission's Conciliation Conference on 12th September, 2011. The Company made no argument in relation to inability to pay.
3 The impact of redundancy has been very traumatic for the worker and there is also the uncertainty of future employment. Management should honour their side of the agreement and pay the 95 weeks redundancy inclusive of statutory and minimum notice.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1 The Company have the practice of collective negotiations with the Union on redundancy. It very clearly established a new redundancy package with the Union in its letter of 7th July, 2009.
2 There has been 208 employees made redundant since the implementation of the cap, with over 50 workers directly affected by the cap of €80,000 including Union members. No attempt has been made by the Union to engage with the Company to reverse the decision in relation to the cap.
3 The Company's redundancy arrangements are still far superior to anything available in the industry.
RECOMMENDATION:
Having considered the submissions of both parties in the case the Court recommends that the Company restore the redundancy offer set out in the letter of 10th June 2011. The Court further recommends that the worker accept those terms in full and final settlement of this dispute.
The Court so recommends.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Brendan Hayes
13th March, 2012______________________
DNDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to David P Noonan, Court Secretary.