FULL RECOMMENDATION
SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : M&J GLEESON & COMPANY TRADING AS C&C GLEESON (REPRESENTED BY MANAGEMENT SUPPORT SERVICES (IRELAND) LTD) - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Ms Jenkinson Employer Member: Mr Murphy Worker Member: Mr McCarthy |
1. RedundancyTerms.
BACKGROUND:
2. The case before the Court concerns a dispute between the Employer and the Union on behalf of its members. The dispute relates specifically to the Union's claim for enhanced redundancy terms for approximately 34 workers across several grades within the commercial organisation. The dispute could not be resolved at local level and was the subject of two Conciliation Conferences held under the auspices of the Workplace Relations Commission. As agreement was not reached, the dispute was referred to the Labour Court on the 27th April, 2017, in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 8th June, 2017. The following is the Recommendation of the Court:
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Union is seeking an enhanced redundancy payment in line with Labour Court Recommendation LCR21190 which was previously applied in redundancy situations to workers across several of the Company's plants.
2. The Union asserts that the redundancy package offered by the Company is lower in comparison to the industry norm.
3. The Union contends that the Company is in a financial position to concede its claim for an additional payment for its members.
EMPLOYER'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Employer maintains that the terms of LCR21190 do not apply in this case.
2. The Employer contends that it is not in a position to concede the Union's claim for enhanced redundancy terms beyond those offered by the Employer.
3. The Employer further contends that the redundancy terms offered to the workers complies with the Company/Union Agreement of 2015.
RECOMMENDATION:
The issue before the Court concerns the Union’s claim for an enhanced redundancy payment for employees being made redundant due to the Company’s restructuring of operations. The Company offered to pay the same terms as were agreed in October 2015 in respect of the Borrisoleigh plant. When that plant eventually closed down in April 2016 and transferred its production to Clonmel, the Union sought an additional payment. Following a Labour Court hearing, it was agreed to pay an additional payment to employees in return for the orderly wind-down of the facility and for their co-operation in transferring production to the Clonmel site. As the latter terms do not apply in this case, the Company rejected the Union’s claim for an additional payment to be made in this case.
The Union argued that the October 2015 Stability Agreement was a site- specific deal aimed at securing the jobs in Borrisoleigh at the time. On this occasion it sought the October 2015 redundancy terms plus an additional payment outside of the cap in recognition of the loyal commitment shown by the Claimants to the Company over many years. Furthermore, on behalf of Merchandisers, it contended that in calculating their week’s pay, it sought the inclusion of a payment of €80 which is paid to them each week over and above their basic pay.
In the particular circumstances of this case, the Court recommends that the following redundancy payment should apply:-
- •3 ½ weeks’ pay per year of service inclusive of statutory redundancy payments capped at €72,000.
- •In calculating the total package, service should be calculated on the same basis as provided for under the Redundancy Payments Acts i.e. part years’ service to be included in the calculation on a pro-rata basis.
•In calculating a Merchandiser’s weekly pay, the calculation should include the €80 regular weekly payment.
•Lump sum payment depending on length of service:-- 2 – 10 years’ service €2,500
10 – 15 years’ service €5,000
15 years’ + service €7,500
- 2 – 10 years’ service €2,500
The Court so recommends.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Caroline Jenkinson
19th June 2017______________________
SCDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Sharon Cahill, Court Secretary.