FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : ARAMARK IRELAND TRADING AS ARAMARK CAMPBELL CATERING (REPRESENTED BY IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION) - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Ms Jenkinson Employer Member: Mr Murphy Worker Member: Ms Tanham |
1. Enhanced redundancy.
BACKGROUND:
2. The case before the Court concerns a dispute between the Employer and the Union on behalf of four of its members previously employed in various catering provision roles within the Company and who were based at the Abbott Ireland site in Sligo. The dispute relates specifically to the Union's claim for an enhanced redundancy payment on behalf of its members who were made redundant receiving statutory redundancy entitlements only. The Union contends that the industry norm is to pay an ex gratia redundancy payment. The Union further contends that direct employees of the Client Company, Abbott Ireland, received an ex gratia payment in addition to statutory entitlements, and believes that this should also apply to the Claimants in this claim. The Company rejects the Union's claim arguing that it is not in a position to fund an enhanced redundancy payment in addition to the statutory payment that has already been paid to the Claimants.
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 23rd August, 2013, in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 26th February, 2014.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. There is an agreement in place between the Client and the Company which states that the Client holds authority in relation to redundancy payments within the Company.
2. The Union does not accept that the Company is not in a position to fund an enhanced redundancy payment.
EMPLOYER'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. It is the Employer's position that its employees are not comparable to Abbott Ireland employees. As a result, the terms of any redundancies effected in Abbott Ireland are completely seperate to those of redundancies carried out within this Company.
2. The Employer strongly asserts that it is not in a financial position to fund enhanced redundancy payments and so rejects the Union's claim.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Union, on behalf of its members based at the Abbott Ireland Limited plant in Sligo, sought an ex gratia redundancy payment for workers being made redundant between December 2012 and August 2013. The Company stated that it had no policy of paying over and above the statutory redundancy payment and in the present economic climate anex gratiapayment could not be paid.
The Union sought application of the enhanced redundancy payments made by Abbott Ireland Limited to its own employees and referred to the commercial contract between Abbott Ireland Limited and Aramark Ireland Limited.
Having considered the submissions of both sides the Court recommendsthat the Claimants should be paid a severance payment of two weeks' pay per year of service in addition to the statutory entitlement.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Caroline Jenkinson
11th March 2014______________________
SCDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Sharon Cahill, Court Secretary.