FULL RECOMMENDATION
SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : ODLUMS PORTARLINGTON/VALEO FOODS (REPRESENTED BY IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION) - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Foley Employer Member: Mr Marie Worker Member: Ms Tanham |
1. Lay Off/Short Time Working 2. Company/Union Agreement
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 the 20 February, 2018 in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990.
A Labour Court hearing took place on the 11thApril, 2018.
3.UNION’S ARGUMENTS:
1. The Union is seeking voluntary redundancy based on seniority in the event of excess manning levels due to a downturn in production.
2. The Union has consistently stated their preference for voluntary redundancy over short time/lay-off.
3. The membership have rejected a WRC proposal for a Company/Union Agreement.
4.EMPLOYER'S ARGUMENTS:
. 1. If the business can have a flexible labour model then it will be able to compete to win back lost business ultimately removing the need for lay-off/redundancy.
2. It would be ridiculous for the company to make members redundant only to find the they have secured a new contract two or three weeks later resulting in the need to recruit new staff.
3. The proposal for a Company/Union Agreement offers the prospect of a sustainable future for the site.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court has given careful consideration to the written and oral submissions of the parties.
The Court notes that two proposals for settlement of this matter have emerged from the parties’ engagements as facilitated by the Workplace Relations Commission. Both of those proposals have been rejected by the Trade Union. It has been made clear to the Court that the key issues giving rise to rejection relate to lay-off and short-time working proposals.
The Court has established that the Trade Union membership on site reject the proposition that, in the event of a temporary downturn in business, the Company should have the facility to introduce temporary lay-off or short-time working as an alternative to redundancy of jobs. The Trade Union proposes that in the event of a temporary downturn in business the Company should introduce an option of voluntary redundancy to be made available on the basis of seniority. In the event that jobs are made “redundant” in this manner and the reduction in business comes to an end the Trade Union proposes that the Company should recruit new staff to replace the staff who were made “redundant” during the temporary downturn.
The Court is clear that a redundancy arises in certain circumstances related to the absence of requirement for the continuing performance of a particular job. The Court has difficulty in understanding the application of the term to a situation where a person’s employment is voluntarily terminated on payment of an ex-gratia payment and they are replaced in that job shortly thereafter.
The Court understands that initiatives such as lay-off and short-time working are undertaken when there is a real prospect of the avoidance of redundancy of a job. Within that framework there are statutory protections for workers. Indeed, in this case the Court notes that the Company has previously undertaken that, if a worker on lay-off triggers their statutory right to redundancy while on lay-off, they will, if statutorily redundant, receive the Company ex-gratia payment as opposed to being limited to their statutory entitlement.
The Court has established at its hearing that at least a number of workers on this site have the objective of being made redundant. The Court has also established that the Company believes that the site has the capacity to sustain employment into the future, has made an investment there and anticipates the possibility of placing business currently located elsewhere on this site.
In all of the circumstances, the Court recommends that the proposal of the Workplace Relations Commission dated 11thJanuary 2018 should be accepted in full and final settlement of the matters in dispute.
The Court so recommends.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Foley
MK______________________
11 April 2018Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Mary Kehoe, Court Secretary.