FULL RECOMMENDATION
SECTION 20(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : AMT- SYBEX SOFTWARE LIMITED - AND - UNITE THE UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Foley Employer Member: Ms Doyle Worker Member: Mr Shanahan |
1. Imposition of compulsory redundancies without prior consultation or agreement and refusal to engage with Unite Trade Union.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Union referred this case to the Labour Court on the 30 August 2017, in accordance with Section 20(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 26 September, 2017. The employer did not attend the hearing.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court has considered in detail the written and oral submission of the Trade Union in this matter. It is clear that the employees of the Respondent represented before the Court have sought to be represented by their Trade Union in this most serious situation. The Respondent has chosen not to be present at the Court and consequently the Court has not had the benefit of the Respondent’s views on the matters before the Court.
The Court notes that the Trade Union anticipates that its members represented before the Court will be informed of their compulsory redundancy within a week of the hearing of the Court and are, in the view of the Union, likely to be advised that their redundancy will take effect almost immediately.
The Court concludes that the statutory consultation period required by the Protection of Employment Acts, 1977 – 2014 and notified by the Respondent has not resulted in effective consultation and engagement on the serious issues arising for the employees for whom redundancy is proposed. The Trade Union submitted that as of the date of the hearing of the Court the Respondent had not agreed to engage with the Trade Union of the employees affected in order to explore all matters associated with the proposed collective redundancy.
In all of those circumstances therefore and taking account of the time frame applying the Court Recommends as follows:
•That the parties should engage as a matter of urgency to address and resolve all outstanding matters as regards the proposed redundancy of eight persons.•Consultation should fully consider all means of achieving the desired cost saving as an alternative to and prior to the effecting of any redundancy.
•That any redundancies required should, in the first instance, be secured on a voluntary basis. In that regard the widest possible group of employees should be invited to apply for voluntary redundancy such that all alternatives to compulsory redundancy can be fully explored.
•Wherever possible the Respondent should make realistic re-deployment opportunities available to employees who would otherwise be made compulsorily redundant.
•Noting that the redundancies at issue are proposed to be executed on a compulsory basis and noting the terms set out by the Trade Union as having applied in what it contended was a similar situation previously, the Court recommends that redundancy terms of 5.5 weeks’ pay per year of service inclusive of statutory redundancy entitlement should be paid in this instance to any person being made redundant. The Court also recommends that persons who do not qualify for a statutory redundancy entitlement should receive a minimum lump sum payment and retraining support.
The Court so recommends.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Foley
LS______________________
26 September 2017Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Clodagh O'Reilly, Court Secretary.