Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD86812 Case Number: LCR10849 Section / Act: S67 Parties: OFFALY CO. CO. - and - LGPSU |
Claim for enhanced redundancy payments for one worker.
Recommendation:
6. The Court, having considered the submissions made by the
parties, recommends that in the special circumstances of this
case, Management should pay to the claimant - in addition to the
statutory redundancy payment - an ex-gratia lump sum of #1,600 in
final settlement of the claim.
Division: Mr Fitzgerald Mr Heffernan Ms Ni Mhurchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD86812 THE LABOUR COURT LCR10849
CC861600 INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR10849
Parties: OFFALY COUNTY COUNCIL
and
LOCAL GOVERNMENT AND PUBLIC SERVICES UNION
Subject:
1. Claim for enhanced redundancy payments for one worker.
Background:
2. The worker was employed by the Council as a carpenter in
April, 1975. In April, 1979, he was appointed temporary building
supervisor. He later applied for a position as clerk of works but
was unsuccessful. However, the successful applicant, who was also
employed by the Council, was seconded to Tullamore Urban District
Council and the worker was offered the post. The Council claim
that this was purely a temporary position while the worker was
under the impression that it was permanent. In October, 1983, the
seconded officer resumed duty with the Council. The worker was
kept on as clerk of works until February, 1986, when he was
advised that he would be reverting to his post of craftsman in the
housing maintenance section. The Council claimed that in normal
circumstances this would have happened in October, 1983, when the
seconded officer returned but because of the availability of work
on capital schemes and housing loans, it was possible to allow him
to continue in his position as clerk of works.
3. The worker was unhappy about the proposed move and following
local level negotiations between the Union and Management he was
offered employment as a supervisory foreman which required him to
carry out duties as a craftsman in addition to being responsible
for supervision. This was not acceptable to the claimant who
requested time-off to seek alternative employment. He was
subsequently granted three months' special leave without pay with
effect from 25th April, 1986. On the 15th May, he requested that
he be made redundant and was given notice of termination of
employment on the 20th of that month. He was paid redundancy at
the statutory rate only (#1,622.40) and was advised that if he so
wished he could apply for a return of superannuation contributions
amounting to #2,494.03. The Union rejected the Council's
redundancy offer and claimed instead six weeks' pay per year of
service in addition to the statutory redundancy entitlements.
Local level discussions failed to resolve the issue and the matter
was referred to the conciliation service of the Labour Court on
the 1st October, 1986. No agreement could be reached at a
conciliation conference held on the 21st October, and the matter
was subsequently referred to the Labour Court for investigation
and recommendation. A Court hearing took place on the 5th
November, 1986.
Union's arguments:
4. (a) The claimant was entitled to be regarded as a permanent
building supervisor by virtue of the fact that he had
worked for seven years in the post, including two years
working side by side with the Clerk of Works. As a
consequence of this, increments are due to him for that
period.
(b) The option offered to him as a working foreman did not
represent a viable option for a number of reasons.
Firstly, the pay would be less than what he previously
had, secondly, he did not feel himself competent to
return as a craftsman because he was "out of practice"
and thirdly, he would have been required to work
alongside staff for whom he had previously been
responsible.
(c) The payment of six weeks' for each year of service in
addition to the statutory entitlements is reasonable
given the expectation of permanence for this particular
grade in local authorities.
Council's arguments:
5. (i) The claimant's redundancy was voluntary in nature. He
had been offered alternative employment with a minimal
loss of wages. As a temporary building supervisor he
was paid #187.13 per week whereas the post offered to
him (that of working foreman) carried a wage scale
ranging from #175.43 to #191.85 per week.
(ii) The claimant was employed in construction and it is the
general practice in the construction industry to pay
statutory entitlement only (details supplied to the
Court).
(iii) Local authorities generally rely on temporary
appointments in a higher capacity to ensure proper and
continuous supervision of works. If the present claim
were to be conceded this practice would be threatened
and could result in increased costs for local
authorities.
(iv) The Council, in line with other local authorities, is
in a severe financial position and an award in excess
of the statutory entitlement in the particular
circumstances of this case would have serious
repercussive effects within the Council itself and
within local authorities generally.
RECOMMENDATION:
6. The Court, having considered the submissions made by the
parties, recommends that in the special circumstances of this
case, Management should pay to the claimant - in addition to the
statutory redundancy payment - an ex-gratia lump sum of #1,600 in
final settlement of the claim.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Nicholas Fitzgerald
________________________
Deputy Chairman.
12th December, 1986.
D.H./J.C.