LCR21716

1. There are two distinct SIPTU groups working in the Company, Hourly Paid and Staff, and these groups have different pay, sick pay schemes and pensions.
2. The Staff Group is prepared to engage further in joint negotiations with the Company provided that the issues negotiated are only pertinent to the Staff Group.
3. As the Company is selecting from skill set for redundancies in the Staff Group, there is little or no potential for voluntary redundancies.

1. The matter of collective bargaining has been resolved and there is a single agreement for all SIPTU members on site.
2. There has never been a variant in the terms paid for voluntary or compulsory redundancy by the Company.
3. The 2017-2019 Agreement should be applicable to all SIPTU members and protected for its duration. Any amendments should be negotiated in line with normal industrial relations practice on the expiry of the said agreement.

The Union negotiated a revised collective agreement (‘the Agreement’) with Organic Lens Manufacturing (‘the Company’) in 2017 to cover the period 1 January 2017 to 31 December 2019. The draft Agreement was balloted on by both the Hourly Paid Group of members and the Staff Group of members. It was accepted by the former and rejected by the latter. The Union and the Company subsequently engaged in conciliation under the auspices of the Workplace Relations Commission following which the only element of the 2017 Agreement with which the Staff Group continues to have a difficulty with is the provision in relation to redundancy terms, notwithstanding the Company’s proposal to offer a new band payable in recognition of long service of over 27 years from €6,000.00 to €8,000.00. The redundancy terms in the Agreement apply to both voluntary and compulsory redundancies and provide for an ex gratia payment of 3.5 weeks’ pay for each full year of continuous service (capped at 104 weeks’ pay) plus statutory redundancy. The members in the Staff Group are seeking an enhancement to the current ex gratia payment in the case of compulsory redundancies. In support of their claim, they submit that their Group, because of its relatively smaller numbers, is potentially more susceptible to compulsory redundancy than the Hourly Paid Group. The Union also referred the Court to more favourable redundancy terms that had been paid in the past by a sister company in the Limerick area.

The Company submits that it negotiated the 2017 Agreement in good faith. This, it says, is evidenced by a number of enhancements to the redundancy provisions included therein over those in the predecessor Agreement. It further submits that there would be no uptake for any future calls for voluntary redundancies were it to agree to enhanced terms for compulsory redundancies over and above those that apply to voluntary redundancies. (Since 2014, there have been sixty-five redundancies in the Company only nine of which were effected on a compulsory basis.) The Company submits that it is not appropriate for the Union to cite the redundancy terms offered by its sister company in Limerick some years previously as those terms were offered in a closure situation and by a different legal entity.

Recommendation

The Court does not recommend concession of the within claim brought on behalf of the Staff Group. Likewise, the Court does not recommend any further enhancement of the redundancy terms provided for within the current Agreement. It is open to the parties to negotiate in relation to those terms, if they so wish, on the conclusion of the period covered by the current Agreement.

The Court so recommends.

Signed on behalf of the Labour Court



Alan Haugh
JD______________________
18 May 2018Deputy Chairman



NOTE

Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to John Deegan, Court Secretary.