Another non-expert, but surely it's not that simplistic?
What if, for example, they were point blank refusing to do something they were contractually, even legally, obliged to do? Don't see why you can't get rid of them and employ alternatives. Note this was an example.
I think the staff must have agreed to it in some way? And the govt.
I believe that that particular case involved unionised and non-unionised workers. The older unionised workers (looking towards their retirement) voted against the package, the younger non-unionised voted for the package.The recent closure in Dundalk was a point in fact. Can't remember the name of the company but weren't they told that if a certain percentage didn't take the package then the whole plant would close putting everyone out of a job? They didn't and the plant closed. Well that's a hollow victory indeed! Nice going guys!
The job is redundant, not the person. New jobs with different working conditions, pay and hours will replace them and be offered to staff.
.
How can Aer Lingus avoid loosing unfair dismissal claims when it is simply going to sack all cabin crew, only to go and hire replacements? The cabin crew positions aren't, in reality, being made redundant, the workers are simply being sacked. Further why should the taxpayer pick-up 60% of the redundancy bill for what is not a genuine redundancy situation? Am I missing something obvious here?
Have we not been through this type of scenario already with Irish Ferries?
There are people in Aer Lingus earning less than the lowest paid in the civil service and are taking big pay cuts as well. Thats what happens when your employer is running at a loss.
Can you provide some referenced figures (with links) for this statement please?
Yes, job redundant, not the person. You can't make a job redundant on a Monday (and ask the state to pay 60% of the costs) and then hire someone (maybe the same person) back to the same job on a Tuesday. Even if you tweak the conditions and the job title . . cabin crew are cabin crew.The job is redundant, not the person. New jobs with different working conditions, pay and hours will replace them and be offered to staff.
Yes, job redundant, not the person. You can't make a job redundant on a Monday (and ask the state to pay 60% of the costs) and then hire someone (maybe the same person) back to the same job on a Tuesday. Even if you tweak the conditions and the job title . . cabin crew are cabin crew.
If this is legal then all legislation protecting workers is worthless. What then is to stop every employer in the state making all their employees redundant today and then hiring whomever they want back on worse pay and conditions, while landing the state with a redundancy bill?
If this is legal then all legislation protecting workers is worthless. What then is to stop every employer in the state making all their employees redundant today and then hiring whomever they want back on worse pay and conditions, while landing the state with a redundancy bill?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?