FULL RECOMMENDATION
SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : TIM HASTINGS LTD - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Ms Jenkinson Employer Member: Mr Marie Worker Member: Ms Tanham |
1. Redundancy selection and terms.
BACKGROUND:
2. This dispute could not be resolved at local level and was the subject of a conciliation conference under the auspices of the Workplace Relations Commission. As agreement was not reached, the dispute was referred to the Labour Court on 11 October 2016 in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on 4 November 2016.
UNION’S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. No reasonable selection criteria for redundancy was applied.
2. The Union expect that the option to take either the enhanced package of twice statutory redundancy would be made available, or the option to return to their job would be available to the three members identified in this case.
3. The Company said that it was losing money. The Union sought to have experts examine the company's books and despite initial agreement to let this happen and a subsequent agreement to the WRC to allow this to happen, no effort has been made by the Company to facilitate this happening.
EMPLOYER'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Company has traded at a loss since the collapse of the economy and the subsequent slow recovery of the retail motor industry.
2. Following the intervention of the Company’s bank, a firm of chartered accountants was appointed by the bank to conduct an independent review of the Company’s business activities. The accountants presented a detailed report including a survival action plan which included the implementation of redundancies.
3. In March 2015 the Company entered into a consultation process with employees regarding impending redundancies. The Company was unable to pay statutory redundancy and redundancy was paid from the Social Insurance Fund.
RECOMMENDATION:
The issues before the Court concerns the Union’s claims regarding (i) selection of employees for redundancy and (ii) a claim for an ex-gratia redundancy payment. Due to severe financial difficulties the Company announced its need to make employees redundant in 2015. Early in 2016, three employees volunteered for redundancy and in August 2016 three more employees were given compulsory notification of redundancy.
The employer gave details to the Court of an independent business review of the Company’s business activities to determine it financial position and its prospect of survival in a competitive market. This assessment was carried out under the auspices of the Company’s bank and outlined the Company’s distressed financial position and made recommendations on its commercial and financial viability.
The Union disputed the selection of the three employees notified of redundancy.
The Court notes that strike notice has been suspended. This was confirmed by the Union at the hearing before the Court.
The Company confirmed that there was no obstacle to Ms Marie Sherlock, Financial Advisor, SIPTU, in examining information concerning the financial positon of the Company and the financial report and recommendation made by MCS Consultants.
Having carefully examined the position of both sides the Court recommends that the Company should fully co-operate with Ms Sherlock’s examination of its financial positon. This process should be completed as soon as possible, in any event not later than Friday 9thDecember 2016.
The Court recommends that on completion of this exercise, both parties should report back to the Court on any progress made. At which time the Court will issue a final Recommendation on the Union’s claims before it.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Caroline Jenkinson
15 November 2016______________________
MNDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Michael Neville, Court Secretary.