FULL RECOMMENDATION
SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : COLORMAN IRELAND LTD (REPRESENTED BY MAIREAD MCKENNA B.L. - AND - PRINTERS (17) (REPRESENTED BY UNITE) DIVISION : Chairman: Ms O'Donnell Employer Member: Ms Doyle Worker Member: Mr McCarthy |
1. Redundancy 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 14 February 2018 in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on16 March 2018.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
The Union informed the Court that they were seeking statutory redundancy plus 4 and a half weeks uncapped. The Union believe that this is a fair offer and would attract volunteers. The Union also stated that they had discussed the option of introducing "short-time" work but that the Company's expectations were unrealistic in this regard.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
The Company informed the Court that there are four printer positions that are now redundant in the Company. The Company also stated that they have fully engaged and co-operated in discussions with staff regarding the need for these redundancies. The Company wishes to move to the next stage of the redundancy process as the positions are now redundant and the continued employment of 17 printers is not feasible.
RECOMMENDATION:
The issue in dispute concerns the terms of the redundancy package to be applied to 4 Litho printer positions being made redundant. The Company initially offered statutory redundancy plus 2 week’s pay per year of service with a cap of €600. The Union on behalf of its members are looking for statutory redundancy plus 4 week’s pay per year of service with the ex-gratia payment being uncapped plus a floor payment of 25,000 inclusive of statutory.
Union’s case
In January 2018, the Workers were informed by the Employer that a decision had been made to sell off the last of their older printing presses and therefore four positions would become redundant. The company sought volunteers. Based on the initial offer set out above nobody volunteered. The Employer then moved to apply last in first out and issued letters to four staff. The Unions position is that they do not accept compulsory redundancies and were looking to engage with the Employer around short time working arrangements. In relation to the package on offer they felt it was insufficient to attract volunteers. They did not dispute that a similar package of two weeks statutory and two week’s ex-gratia capped at €600 had been accepted during a redundancy situation in 2009. In the course of engagement, the Employer increased the severance terms on offer to 2 weeks statutory plus 3 week’s ex-gratia capped at €600. However, this was not acceptable to the Union.
Employer’s case
Four printer roles have been redundant since January the Employer did try and engage with the Workers around short-time working but agreement could not be reached. The offer of double statutory capped at €600 was agreed previously with the Union and it is the Employers position that this offer is not out of line with what is currently happening in the printing industry. The Employer informed the Court that salaries in the company ranged from €800 to €1,200 per week and that the Company could not financially afford the cost of having an uncapped package.
Recommendation
The Court having read the submissions of both parties and listened carefully to the oral submissions made on the day notes that the previous redundancy agreement with the Employer contained a cap equivalent to the statutory cap. In all the circumstances of this case the Court recommends that the Employer adjusts the severance terms on offer to statutory plus four week’s pay per year of service with the ex-gratia element capped at €900.
The court so recommends.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Louise O'Donnell
JD______________________
6 April 2018Deputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to John Deegan, Court Secretary.