FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : RAWLPLUG IRELAND LTD (REPRESENTED BY MCDOWELL PURCELL SOLICITORS) - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Ms Jenkinson Employer Member: Ms Doyle Worker Member: Mr McCarthy |
1. Increase in ex-gratia redundancy payment.
BACKGROUND:
2. The case concerns five Claimants, all former employees of the Company while it was based in Dublin. The Company, due to financial reasons, merged with a sister Company resulting in the transfer of business from Park West, Dublin to Drogheda, Co. Louth. A number of employees chose not to apply for positions at the Drogheda site and accepted the enhanced redundancy terms on offer at the time. The Union is seeking an enhanced redundancy package similar to the sector norm while Management cite the poor financial circumstances of the stand-alone Irish Company.
The 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 22nd September, 2014, in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 13th November, 2014.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. Rawlplug is a very successful worldwide Group of Companies, showing profits in the years "2010, 2011, 2012 and 2013, during which time the restructuring of the Irish Company took place.
2. The Company offered a once off €1,000 payment plus statutory terms while the norm in the sector was for two weeks' pay per year of service plus terms.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Company is not in a financial position to further increase the already enhanced redundancy terms, as demanded by the Claimants.
2. All of the Claimants were aware of the terms of the redundancy package and voluntary decided to take the enhanced offer in August 2013.
RECOMMENDATION:
The issue before the Court concerns a claim by five named Claimants for an increase in the ex-gratia redundancy payment made by the Company. The Union sought two week’s pay per year of service in addition to the statutory redundancy payment already paid.
The Company outlined for the Court its serious financial circumstances and stated that due to the losses it sustained in years from 2009 until 2014 it had no alternative but to close its premises in Dublin and transfer it operation to its sister company in Drogheda. Due to the transfer and with a duplication of roles, there was a surplus of staff and in these circumstances the Claimants opted for redundancy. The Company rejected the Union’s claim stating that due to its current financial circumstances to concede the claim would result in the Company being insolvent, with the loss of 18 jobs.
Having examined the details submitted by both sides, in all the circumstances of this case, the Court does not recommend in favour of the Union’s claim due to the serious precarious nature of the Company. The Court recommends that the Company’s offer should be increased, therefore the Court recommends the following lump sum payments should be paid to the five named Claimants who were party to this claim:-
Mr McG: €5500
Mr M: €2500
Mr K: €2000
Ms O: €4500
Mr F: €2000
The Court so recommends.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Caroline Jenkinson
19th December, 2014______________________
JFDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to John Foley, Court Secretary.