FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : PRIORITY DRILLING LTD (REPRESENTED BY IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION) - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Foley Employer Member: Ms Cryan Worker Member: Ms O'Donnell |
1. Voluntary Redundancy.
BACKGROUND:
2. This dispute concerns a formula for voluntary redundancy. 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 10th November, 2015, in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990.
A Labour Court hearing took place on the 14th January, 2016.
UNION’S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Union contends that due to the nature of the business it is appropriate that agreed terms for voluntary redundancy be in place.
2. The Union contends that the Company is satisfied for lay-off and short time working to continue indefinitely which is not acceptable to their members. The Union states that the Company is very willing to accommodate Statutory Redundancy requests as it delivers an easy way out and savings to the Company.
3. There are well established Voluntary Redundancy terms in the Mining Industry.
EMPLOYER'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Company has never operated a scheme of voluntary redundancy in the past and there are no redundancies contemplated at this time.
2. Employees who are on temporary lay-off or working under short term arrangements for the correct period of time may apply for redundancy as per the Redundancy Payments Act 1967-2014.
3. The Company only use lay-off/short time working as a last resort where there is no alternative work available and the Company endeavours to re-engage workers as soon as possible. The Company cannot concede to the option of voluntary redundancy where it could lose long serving, highly skilled and experienced workers at a high cost to the Company.
RECOMMENDATION:
This case concerns the Union’s claim to establish the terms to apply in the event of a voluntary redundancy arising in the company in the future. The Union has clarified to the Court that such terms would not apply in any situation where an employee, having experienced lay off or short time working, terminated their employment as a result of having given notice of an intention to claim a Redundancy Lump Sum payment utilising Form RP9 in accordance with the terms of the Redundancy Payments Acts, 1967 – 2014.
The Court has considered the written and oral submissions of the parties. The Court notes the company’s assertion that no redundancy situation exists within the company and neither is a redundancy situation envisaged in the foreseeable future. The Court believes that it would be inappropriate in those circumstances to recommend terms to apply in a redundancy situation occurring in what is, at this time, an unknown context.
The Court recommends that, in the event of a redundancy situation arising into the future, the parties should engage to address that matter at that time taking account of all relevant matters and circumstances then arising.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Foley
15th January, 2016______________________
CCDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Ceola Cronin, Court Secretary.