FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : G & T CRAMPTON LTD (REPRESENTED BY CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY FEDERATION) - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Duffy Employer Member: Ms Doyle Worker Member: Ms Tanham |
1. Enhanced redundancy package
BACKGROUND:
2. This dispute concerns a claim by the Trade Union on behalf of a member for an enhanced redundancy package. 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 1stFebruary 2013, in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990.
A Labour Court hearing took place on the 10thMay 2013.
UNION’S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Claimant was employed by the Company for 13 years on various sites mostly in Dublin.
2. While working on a site in Howth he was called to a meeting with the Safety & Personnel Manager and was informed that he was being given six weeks' notice of being made redundant.
3. The Company is still a viable business and the Claimant is the only former employee who did not receive an enhanced redundancy package.
EMPLOYER'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. Like all other contractors in the industry, the Company has experienced a massive reduction in its activities.
2. Approximately 260 employees were made redundant from the end of 2007 representing over 93% of the total workforce.
3. The Company is not in a position to pay an enhanced redundancy package and no staff member being paid the Registered Employment Agreement (REA) rates of pay received an enhanced redundancy package.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court notes that two other employees of the Company who were made redundant atthe same time at the Claimant received enhanced redundancy terms oftwoweeks'pay per year of service plus statutory terms. The Company have pointed out that thoseemployees were not covered by the REA for the industry whereas the Claimant is socovered.They say that they have never paid enhanced redundancy in that amount toworkers covered by the REA.
The Court cannot accept that the grounds relied upon by the Company justify the difference in treatment for redundancy purposes between the Claimant and the other workers made redundant at the same time. Furthermore,the Court in previous Recommendations,has recommended the payment of enhanced redundancy terms to
workers covered bythe REA in the amount now claimed.
In all the circumstances the Court recommends that the Union's claim for two weeks'pay per year of service plus statutory terms be conceded.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Duffy
CR______________________
26th June, 2013.Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Ciaran Roche, Court Secretary.