FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 20(2), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : WINCANTON (REPRESENTED BY IBEC) - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Duffy Employer Member: Ms Cryan Worker Member: Ms Tanham |
1. Redundancy Terms.
BACKGROUND:
2. The case before the Court concerns a dispute between the Employer and the Union on behalf of approximately one hundred of its members employed in the Blanchardstown depot of the Company who are facing redundancy in August, 2014. The Employer has offered a redundancy package comprising of statutory entitlements and an ex-gratia payment of two weeks' pay per year of service at basic pay plus shift pay. The Union has rejected the offer made by the Employer and is seeking enhanced terms including statutory entitlements and an ex-gratia payment amounting to three weeks' pay per year of service at basic pay plus shift premium, in addition to a lump sum in the amount of five thousand euro per employee. The Employer contends that it is not in a financial position to concede the Union's claim. The dispute could not be resolved at local level and agreement was not reached.
The dispute was referred to the Labour Court on the 15th May, 2014 in accordance with Section 20(2) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969 and both parties agreed to be bound by the Recommendation. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 12th June, 2014.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Employer has previously funded an enhanced redundancy package.
2. The Union is seeking similar terms to those that were recommended previously in Labour Court Recommendation No. 20348 and sees no apparent reason as to why its members are not entitled to this package.
EMPLOYER'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Employer strongly rejects the relevance of Labour Court Recommendation No. 20348, arguing that this recommendation involved a significantly lesser amount of employees in a different sector of the Company.
2. The Employer is not in a financial position to concede the Union's claim for a package greater than the terms that have already been offered.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court accepts that there are material differences in the circumstances surrounding the current redundancies and those that gave rise to LCR20348.
The Court recommends that in respect of the current redundancies the Company should offer and the Union should accept a package comprising statutory terms plus three weeks' pay per year of service uncapped. Basic pay and shift payments should be included in the calculations.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Duffy
13th June 2014______________________
SCChairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Sharon Cahill, Court Secretary.