FULL RECOMMENDATION
SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : BOXMORE PLASTICS LTD (REPRESENTED BY PURDY FITZGERALD, SOLICITORS) - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Haugh Employer Member: Mr Murphy Worker Member: Mr Shanahan |
1. Redundancy terms
BACKGROUND:
2. This dispute could not be resolved at local level and was referred to the Labour Court in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A labour Court hearing took place on 21 October 2016.
UNION’S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Company’s actions are difficult for SIPTU members to accept as they are fully aware that the Company have been making profits.
2. It is not an unreasonable request for the employees to seek the previous ex gratia redundancy package of four weeks’ pay per year of service inclusive of statutory redundancy entitlements.
3. SIPTU members are requesting that they get treated fairly and rewarded equally for their efforts as their colleagues have been previously.
EMPLOYER'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Company acknowledges that in 2010 following a dispute over redundancy terms the Company accepted a Labour Court Recommendation of four weeks’ pay per year of service. At that time the Company was part of the Chesapeake group of companies.
2. In 2010 there was a 60% rebate from the Government towards the statutory redundancy payment when the bulk of employees were made redundant. The Company is now in an entirely different situation and circumstances and is a stand-alone business.
3. The Company is struggling to maintain the current level of business and has had to review and revise the 2010 Recommendation from the Labour Court. The Company simply cannot afford the redundancy terms as recommended in 2010.
RECOMMENDATION:
Issue
This dispute concerns the Respondent’s proposal to offer less favourable redundancy terms to those of its workers who will be impacted by an anticipated round of redundancies in early 2017. The redundancy package previously applied by the Respondent (in 2010 and 2012) was based on a formula of 4 weeks’ pay per year of service inclusive of statutory redundancy. This formula derived from a Labour Court Recommendation (LCR19876 of 9 August 2010). The Respondent submits that its financial and trading positions have deteriorated sharply since 2012 and it is not in a position to apply this formula in the event that it becomes necessary to effect redundancies in early 2007. It has proposed – strictly as a once-off arrangement and without prejudice to any later rounds of redundancies thereafter – that it would apply the following formula in the first quarter of 2017: “three weeks’ pay per year of service with two weeks as statutory and one week ex gratia based on an employee’s P60 earnings.” The Union balloted its members on the Respondent’s proposal. The proposal was rejected by a very significant majority.
Recommendation
Having considered the parties’ written and oral submissions, the Court is of the view that the Respondent should apply a package based on 3.5 weeks’ pay per year of service, inclusive of statutory redundancy, in the event that it becomes necessary to effect redundancies in early 2017.
The Court so recommends.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Alan Haugh
28 November 2016______________________
MNDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Michael Neville, Court Secretary.