FULL RECOMMENDATION
SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : CHESHIRE - AND - 25 WORKERS (REPRESENTED BY SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION) DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Haugh Employer Member: Mr Marie Worker Member: Ms Tanham |
1. Outstanding redundancy payments
BACKGROUND:
2. This case involves an application for payment of outstanding redundancy terms for 25 SIPTU members working for Cheshire Ireland. The following is the Court's Recommendation:-
RECOMMENDATION:
Background to the Dispute
The within dispute concerns the payment of enhanced redundancy payments by Cheshire Foundation Ireland T/A Cheshire Ireland (‘the Company’). The dispute is the subject of a previous Labour Court Recommendation – LCR21103 dated 16 December 2015 – in which the Court recommended that the Company should apply the redundancy terms provided for in the Haddington Road Agreement (‘HRA’) (i.e. three weeks’ pay per year of service plus statutory, capped at two years’ pay). In LCR21103, the Court noted the financial difficulties being experienced by the Company at that time and recommended that it engage in early course with the HSE with a view to securing the necessary additional funding it required in order to meet the cost of anticipated redundancies.
In the intervening period, twenty-five Workers have been made compulsorily redundant by the Company. Those Workers received the Company’s established redundancy package of one and a half weeks’ pay per year of service, exclusive of statutory entitlements. Although the Company has made several attempts to engage with the HSE, as recommend by the Court, those attempts have not been successful to date. It should also be noted that SIPTU, on behalf of its members, has also engaged separately with the HSE in relation to this issue.
The Company’s financial situation has continued to decline since 2015 and its financial dependency on the HSE has increased also. In the course of the within hearing, however, its representative – Mr Brendan McCarthy of Stratis Consulting –gave a commitment that any Worker made redundant in the future would receive the HRA redundancy terms. He also told the Court that although the Company was not currently in a position to make additional payments to the twenty-five Workers who have made redundant since 2015 to bridge the difference between the redundancy terms they received and the HRA terms, it undertook to do so when the necessary finances became available.
Recommendation
The Court reiterates in full its Recommendation given in LCR21103 save that it additionally recommends on this occasion that the Union and the Company jointly engage with the HSE with a view to securing, in early course, the necessary funding to permit the Company to honour its commitment to apply the HRA redundancy terms.
The Court so recommends.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Alan Haugh
CC______________________
3 October 2019Deputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Ceola Cronin, Court Secretary.