FULL RECOMMENDATION
SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : WATERFORD STANLEY (REPRESENTED BY IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION) - AND - CONNECT TRADE UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Ms Jenkinson Employer Member: Ms Doyle Worker Member: Ms Treacy |
1. Redundancy Terms.
BACKGROUND:
2. The case before the Court concerns a claim by the Union for enhanced redundancy terms on behalf of 14 craft workers who were made redundant from the Company in February 2016. It is the Union's claim that further compulsory redundancies effected by the Company in 2017 were paid enhanced terms of an additional €600 per year of service. The Union is seeking the payment of the additional €600 to the 14 Workers involved in this dispute. The Employer rejects the Union's claim arguing that the additional payment that was agreed in September 2017 was as a result of a wind down situation and came with a number of required terms and conditions attached. The Employer therefore asserts that the additional payment is not applicable to the Workers involved in this claim. A once-off lump sum payment was offered by the Company in full and final settlement of the dispute however this was rejected by the Union.
The dispute could not be resolved at local level and was the subject of a number of Conciliation Conferences under the auspices of the Workplace Relations Commission. As agreement was not reached, the dispute was referred to the Labour Court on the 21st March, 2018, in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 16th May, 2018.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Union contends that the compulsory element of the redundancies carried out in 2017 match those of February 2016 involving these Claimants.
2. The Union is seeking application of the enhanced redundancy payment paid in 2017.
3. The Union maintains that the Employer is in a financial position to concede its claim.
EMPLOYER'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The enhanced redundancy payment in 2017 was paid in recognition of those workers' co-operation in facilitating an orderly wind down programme.
2. The Claimants involved in this claim were not involved in the 2017 wind down programme and as a result are not entitled to the enhanced redundancy payment.
3. The Employer is not in a position to retrospectively apply enhanced redundancy terms to workers who were made redundant prior to 2017.
RECOMMENDATION:
The issue before the Court concerns a claim by 14 Claimants, made redundant in February 2016, for an enhanced redundancy over and above that which was paid to them in 2016. The Union sought an enhancement to the package in line with that paid to workers subsequently made redundant by the Company in October/November 2017.
The Union submitted to the Court that it was agreed in February 2016 when the Claimants were being made redundant on a compulsory basis to pay statutory redundancy plus 3 ½ weeks’ pay per year of service plus a lump sum of €2000 each and in the event that such terms were not accepted then the parties would refer any outstanding matter to the State's industrial relations bodies.
The Union referred the issue to the WRC and the parties attended three conciliations conferences, 19thApril 2016, 30thJanuary 2017 and 14thMarch 2018. At conciliation the Company made two offers in an effort to settle the matter.
While this dispute was being discussed at the WRC, the Company introduced further redundancies when it decided to close its manufacturing base and make thirty-four employees redundant. The Company and the Union entered into discussions and negotiations on the severance package to apply to these workers, to take account of the requirement to comply with an orderly winddown of the business while maintaining KPI’s and co-operating with outsourcing. These redundancies were announced in May 2017 and took effect mostly in October and November 2017, with a small number at a later date. The final negotiated severance package agreed in respect of these workers entailed a statutory payment plus 3½ weeks’ pay per year of service, plus €600 per year of service.
The Union sought the application of the same terms to the 14 workers made redundant in February 2016. It submitted that both sets of redundancies were on a compulsory basis and accordingly the same terms should apply.
The Company submitted that the terms of the latter redundancies were agreed on the basis of real value for the Company in a closedown of its manufacturing function, where it sought full co-operation and an orderly winddown.
Having considered the submissions of both parties the Court is of the view that the circumstances pertaining to both sets of negotiations were undertaken in very different situations. The Court notes that the Company has agreed to pay an additional enhanced payment to the Claimants involved in this case, it offered to pay an additional €1,500 lump sum to each of the 14 Claimants in addition to the ex-gratia payment of €2,000 lump sum already paid plus 3½ weeks pay per year of service. These workers also received payment in lieu of notice when they were made redundant in February 2016.
In all the circumstances the Court recommends that the Company’s offer of a lump sum of €1,500 should be paid to each of the 14 Claimants in full and final settlement of the claim before the Court.
The Court so recommends.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Caroline Jenkinson
11th June 2018______________________
SCDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Sharon Cahill, Court Secretary.