FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : JOHNSON BROTHERS (REPRESENTED BY IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION) - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Hayes Employer Member: Mr Murphy Worker Member: Ms Tanham |
1. Redundancy Terms
BACKGROUND:
2. This dispute concerns the redundancy terms offered by the Company to several of its retail trade supply staff. 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 25th September, 2012, in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 11th December 2012.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3 1 The redundancies were caused by the Company's decision to transfer work to its parent company.
2 The Company is part of a very profitable group of companies.
3 The Company should, accordingly, pay the previously agreed redundancy package of statutory plus two weeks per year of service, capped at 1.5 year's pay.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4 1 The Company is operating under considerable financial pressure.
2 The Company has previously implemented redundancies and and a 5% pay cut.
3. The Company's offer of three week's per year of service, including statutory is fair and reasonable in the circumstances.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court has carefully considered the submission of both parties to this dispute.
The Court recommends that the collectively agreed redundancy terms of 2 weeks' pay per year of service in addition to statutory redundancy be applied in this case.
The Court so recommends.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Brendan Hayes
14the January, 2013______________________
JMcCDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Jonathan McCabe, Court Secretary.