Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD86711 Case Number: LCR10892 Section / Act: S20(1) Parties: BRAIDS OF ENNIS LTD - and - MS. RITA HOGAN |
Claim for enhanced redundancy payment.
Recommendation:
7. On the basis of the evidence presented, the Court does not
find it possible to recommend concession of the claim.
Division: Mr Fitzgerald Mr Shiel Ms Ni Mhurchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD86711 THE LABOUR COURT LCR10892
Section 20(1) INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR10892
PARTIES: BRAIDS OF ENNIS LIMITED
(REPRESENTED BY THE FEDERATED UNION OF EMPLOYERS)
AND
A WORKER
Subject:
1. Claim for enhanced redundancy payment.
Background:
2. This claim concerns a worker who accepted voluntary
redundancy from the Company in February, 1985. The worker had
seventeen years' service with the Company at that time and had
been suspended for the six weeks prior to her redundancy. The
worker accepted a total redundancy payment of #2,500.
3. In February, 1986, the Company made eight workers redundant.
The worker concerned heard that these workers received lump-sum
redundancy compensation payments ranging from #8,000 to #17,000.
She subsequently claimed an enhanced redundancy payment on a
similar level to those which were paid in February, 1986. The
Company rejected the claim.
4. No agreement was reached at local level and on 25th August,
1986, the worker referred the matter to the Labour Court under
Section 20(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969 for
investigation and recommendation. The worker agreed to be bound
by the Court's recommendation. The Court investigated the claim
on 11th November, 1986 in Ennis.
Worker's arguments:
5. (i) It is unfair that the worker only got #2,500
redundancy compensation while some of the workers
made redundant in February, 1986, got nearly ten
times this amount as compensation.
(ii) After seventeen years' service with the Company the
worker is entitled to a fair and adequate amount of
redundancy compensation.
(iii) The worker was not personally present at the
negotiations about her redundancy. The Union told
her that if she did not accept the Company's offer of
voluntary redundancy she would get nothing and would
still be dismissed.
Company's arguments:
6. (a) The worker's redundancy took place on a voluntary basis
and the lump sum payment of #2,500 was negotiated and
agreed on her behalf by her Union.
(b) The Company was lenient with the worker by initially
opting for an extended suspension rather than a
straight dismissal and then subsequently acceding to
her request to be made redundant.
(d) The Company paid the worker an ex-gratia payment of
#630 in addition to her statutory entitlements. The
Company considers that it has fully settled all the
worker's claims against the Company.
RECOMMENDATION:
7. On the basis of the evidence presented, the Court does not
find it possible to recommend concession of the claim.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court.
Nicholas Fitzgerald
___8th__January,__1987. ______________________
T. O'M. / M. F. Deputy Chairman