FULL RECOMMENDATION
SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : INDEPENDENT NEWSPAPERS AND MEDIA GROUP LIMITED (REPRESENTED BY EVERSHEDS/SUTHERLAND) - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Foley Employer Member: Mr Marie Worker Member: Ms Treacy |
1. Terms of Redundancy Package
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 10 March 2020 in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on 4 June 2020 in a virtual Court room.
UNION’S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Union is seeking an improved redundancy package for six workers due to the fact that their redundancy is compulsory rather than voluntary.
2. The Union is seeking an improvement in the ex-gratia payment offered as part of a multi- element package to six weeks pay per year of service (uncapped), along with a €5,000 ex gratia payment for re-training and €1,500 per year of service if over 30 years
EMPLOYER'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Employer maintains that the offer made costs on average 63% in excess of statutory terms and 18% in excess of the previous standard package in the business, and that this was demonstrated by the large uptake of same.
2. The Employer has offered the workers redeployment within the company on the same terms and conditions as in their previous positions.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court has given very careful consideration to the written and oral submissions of the parties.
The matter before the Court commenced in October 2019 when the employer announced that it was, for reasons associated with business conditions, seeking 28 redundancies and that it was hoped that these redundancies could be achieved voluntarily. In the event 49 persons from the workforce of over 80 personnel volunteered for redundancy on the terms offered. In those circumstances, and having reviewed the situation, the employer decided that the plant would close in early 2020 with the loss of approximately 82 jobs.
At the point of hearing of the matter by the Court, all employees save for the six claimants had agreed terms for their redundancy and in fact, as far as the Court understands, had already left the employment having been made redundant. The six claimants have not accepted terms on offer and have not agreed to their redundancy.
The Court has considered carefully the full circumstances of this matter. All redundancies which have taken place appear to have occurred on terms which were agreed either collectively or at an individual level between worker and employer. In the case of the six claimants, they consider that they are being made compulsorily redundant and have not accepted the terms on offer from the employer in respect of those redundancies. This position is adopted notwithstanding that the employer has offered continuing employment to all six on the same terms and conditions of employment as had been enjoyed by them previously. The continuing employment offered by the employer would be in different roles to that previously discharged by the six claimants and would be located in close geographical proximity to their current place of work. All six claimants have refused the offer of continuing employment.
The Court has had regard to all of the circumstances arising in this matter. The Court takes particular note of the fact that, unlike all others who have been made redundant, there has been no agreement between the employer and the six claimants as regards the terms for redundancy arising from the closure of the workplace. The Court also notes however that the employer, by making an offer of alternative employment, made significant efforts to avoid the redundancies and to protect the livelihoods of all six claimants.
In all the circumstances therefore, the Court recommends that the ex-gratia payment in excess of statutory entitlement offered to the six claimants by the employer should be increased to 2.5 weeks pay per year of service. All other elements of the offered terms should remain unchanged. The amended terms should be accepted in full and final settlement of the matters in dispute before the Court.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Foley
DC______________________
9 June 2020Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to David Campbell, Court Secretary.