FULL RECOMMENDATION
SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : BOC GASES - AND - 9 CLERICAL / ADMIN STAFF (REPRESENTED BY SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION) DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Geraghty Employer Member: Ms Connolly Worker Member: Ms Tanham |
1. Voluntary Redundancy Package
BACKGROUND:
2. This dispute could not be resolved at local level and was the subject of 11 Conciliation Conferences under the auspices of the Workplace Relations Commission. As agreement was not reached, the dispute was referred to the Labour Court on 3 October 2019 in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on 20 December 2019.
UNION’S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Union is claiming that voluntary early retirement is a pre-requisite element of the redundancy package.
EMPLOYER'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Employer maintains that provision of voluntary early retirement is not an option as it is cost-prohibitive.
RECOMMENDATION:
The background to this case is that a cost cutting proposal was put by the Employer and opposed by the Union. This involved the Revenue Department being re-located to another jurisdiction. Outside, independent advice was secured and, following a protracted negotiation, an alternative proposal emerged, which was instigated by the Union and which allows the work concerned to continue to be done in its present location. The Employer accepted this alternative proposal, even though it involved a significant reduction in cost savings.
A package of proposals was put to the Union in order to achieve the savings concerned. Included in this package are terms for voluntary severance that, in the view of the Court, compare very favourably with such packages elsewhere. Following negotiation, the Union secured even further beneficial improvements in the overall package.
Having engaged jointly and separately with the parties, it is clear to the Court that the sticking point concerns the absence of provision for Voluntary Early Retirement, (VER), in the package of proposals on offer.
Due to pension funding requirements, if there was to be a VER element in the proposals, the Employer would be required to inject €1.7m approx. into the Company’s pension scheme immediately. Alternatively, the scheme itself would come under pressure, to the detriment of its members. The Employer made clear that it would not make such a payment in order to get agreement to a package, which would, if accepted, result in savings of €250,000 p.a. in costs, in total.
It would be reckless of the Court to make any Recommendation that would result in financial pressure on a pension scheme. The question for the Court, therefore, is whether it is reasonable or logical to recommend that the Employer inject the level of funding required into the scheme in order to meet the Union’s requirement. In the view of the Court it is, most certainly, neither reasonable nor logical to do so.
Recommendation
Therefore, the Court does not recommend concession of the Union claim for VER to be included in the proposals on offer to the Workers.
Having regard to all the circumstances, the Court recommends that the current terms of the package of proposals on offer be accepted by both parties.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Tom Geraghty
DC______________________
16 January 2020Deputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to David Campbell, Court Secretary.