FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : LUFTHANSA TECHNIK AIRMOTIVE (IRE) LIMITED - AND - UNITE TECHNICAL, ENGINEERING AND ELECTRICAL UNION SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION (EMPLOYEE WORKS COUNCIL) DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Hayes Employer Member: Ms Cryan Worker Member: Mr Shanahan |
1. Severance terms for closure.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Company recently announced that the plant in Rathcoole Co Dublin would close with the loss of all jobs.
This dispute concerns the severance terms offered to the Workers affected. 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 13th December, 2013, in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990.
A Labour Court hearing took place on 20th December, 2013.
UNIONS'ARGUMENTS
3. 1. The severance terms offered by the Company are inadequate and out of line with earlier agreements reached between the Unions and Management.
2.The Company tabled severance terms on 6th December 2013 but withdrew them at the LRC on 12th December and proposed to reinstate lesser severance terms that were offered in 2012 in respect of voluntary redundancy. The offer made on 6th December should be restored for the purposes of the current investigation by the Labour Court.
3. The Court should recommend improvements in the Company's offerof 6th Decemberto match and improve upon the terms applied when redundancies were necessary in the past.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS
4. 1. The Company has tabled reasonable proposals that should be recommended by the Court and accepted by the Unions.
2. The offermade on 6th Decemberwas contingent upon it being put to a ballot of the Workers with a a recommendation for acceptance by the Unions. When this was not forthcoming the offer was withdrawn. It is not now possible to reinstate that offer. Circumstances have changed and that offer cannot and will not be supported by the Company.
3. The proposals tabled by the Company conform with that which was applied when redundancies were effected in 2012.
RECOMMENDATION:
Having considered the submissions of both parties to this dispute the Court recommends that the Unions accept the severance terms offered by the Company and outlined to the Court in the course of the hearing. The Court notes that they are in line with the redundancy terms that were applied in the Company in 2012. For the purpose of avoiding any misunderstanding the redundancy package outlined to the Court by the Company are as follows:-
1. Statutory Entitlement, plus2. Four week’s basic pay per year of service
3. Capped at two year’s basic pay,
4. With a minimum payment of €7,500.
The Court further notes that both sides agreed that the matter of the under funding of the pension scheme was not before it for consideration or recommendation.
Finally the Court notes the Company’s commitment to make every effort to ensure that apprentices are afforded an opportunity to complete their apprenticeships within the state or in other company facilities where possible.
The Court so recommends.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Brendan Hayes
20th December, 2013______________________
JFDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to John Foley, Court Secretary.