Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD87125 Case Number: LCR11117 Section / Act: S20(1) Parties: PLASCON LTD - and - IWWU |
Dispute concerning the termination of employment of a worker.
Recommendation:
5. Having considered the circumstances of the workers dismissal
the Court recommends that she be paid a further sum of #560 plus a
further one week's pay to rectify shortage of period of notice.
Division: Mr O'Connell Mr Shiel Mr Devine
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD87125 THE LABOUR COURT LCR11117
SECTION 20(1) INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969
RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR11117
Parties: PLASCON LIMITED
(REPRESENTED BY THE FEDERATED UNION OF EMPLOYERS)
and
FEDERATED WORKERS' UNION OF IRELAND
(IRISH WOMEN WORKERS' BRANCH)
Subject:
1. Dispute concerning the termination of employment of a worker.
Background:
2. The worker concerned commenced employment with the Company in
September, 1980. After six months she moved to the sales office
where her duties included typing, telephonist and general office
duties. Between January, 1982 and December, 1984 the range of the
worker's duties expanded. After the sales manager left the
Company, the worker sought and was appointed to that position
under a different title, that of purchasing production controller
in the sales department. Her duties included production
scheduling and costing on production. In June, 1986 another
worker left the Company and some of her duties were taken over by
the worker concerned, On 2nd July, 1986, the worker concerned,
along with 3 other workers was informed that her employment was
being terminated by reason of redundancy on 25th July, 1986. The
worker, as she had holidays booked for the 18th July, 1986 since
February, 1986 asked the Company if she would leave on that date.
The Company agreed. The Union sought a meeting with the Company
to discuss the termination of the workers employment. The Union
were seeking either reinstatement without a break in service or
compensation for redundancy. The worker received a statutory lump
sum of #560 when she left employment. The Company refused to meet
the Union and declined to attend an investigation by a Rights
Commissioner or to attend a conciliation conference. The Union
then referred the issue to the Labour Court for investigation and
recommendation under Section 20(1) of the Industrial Relations
Act, 1969. The Union agreed to be bound by the Labour Court
recommendation.
Union's arguments:
3. (a) The worker concerned was the most senior person in the
employ of the Company at that time and she was
therefore unfairly selected for redundancy as there
were other workers with lesser service.
(b) The other 3 workers who were selected for redundancy at
the same time were not let go but retained by the
Company.
(c) The worker's job was not redundant, her duties were
divided among the rest of the workers in the Company.
Another worker was engaged on 8th July, 1986, and a
typist has since been engaged.
(d) The worker is not now seeking reinstatement as it is
considered inappropriate. She is seeking adequate
compensation for unfair selection for redundancy plus
compensation for notice as she did not receive her
proper notice under the Minimum Notice and Terms of
Employment Act, 1973.
Company's arguments:
4. (i) The Company was and is going through a bad patch.
There was a redundancy situation and the worker along
with others was selected for redundancy. She was paid
a statutory redundancy lump sum. No agreement exists
covering selection for redundancy.
(ii) The worker who was employed from 8th July, 1986 is a
qualified bookkeeper with 35 years' experience. Her
main duties are bookkeeping and typing. The worker
concerned is not a qualified bookkeeper. A typist
comes in about once a month when there is an overlap of
work. Of the other 3 workers who were selected for
redundancy at the same time as the worker concerned,
one is employed part-time, the other transferred to a
sister Company and the third worker was taken back
after 3 months.
(iii) As far as the Company is aware the worker was paid her
entitlements under the relevant Acts. However, the
Company will check its records.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. Having considered the circumstances of the workers dismissal
the Court recommends that she be paid a further sum of #560 plus a
further one week's pay to rectify shortage of period of notice.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
John O'Connell
_________________________
6th April, 1987 Deputy Chairman
M.D./J.C.