Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD86857 Case Number: LCR10919 Section / Act: S67 Parties: ADVANCE TYRE CO. - and - ITGWU |
Claim for an ex-gratia payment to one employee who had to retire early due to ill health.
Recommendation:
7. The Court finds that there was no redundancy in this case and
the Court does not therefore recommend concession of the claim.
Division: CHAIRMAN Mr Collins Ms Ni Mhurchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD86857 THE LABOUR COURT LCR10919
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR10919
Parties: ADVANCE TYRE COMPANY LIMITED
(REPRESENTED BY THE FEDERATED UNION OF EMPLOYERS)
and
IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION
Subject:
1. Claim for an ex-gratia payment to one employee who had to
retire early due to ill health.
Background:
2. The worker concerned in this case suffered a heart attack in
June, 1985. Following a period of sick leave, arrangements were
made for the early retirement of the worker on health grounds.
The workers retirement took effect as and from 1st April, 1986.
The issue of the necessity for the termination of his employment
is not in dispute. Following his early retirement the worker,
(who is in his early fifties) received a full pension in
accordance with the provisions of the Company's Scheme including a
pension lump sum of #17,949. The worker was not in receipt of any
ex-gratia payment or redundancy lump sum. The Union, on behalf of
the worker, is seeking the payment of #11,880 to the worker. The
Union's case is based on the fact that three other workers who
retired early received ex-gratia payments in addition to pension
entitlements. The Company's view of the matter was that the other
cases involved actual redundancies, whereas the worker involved in
this case was replaced, although not in the same grade. No
agreement could be reached at local level, and on 18th June, 1986,
the matter was referred to the conciliation service of
the Labour Court. A conciliation conference took place on 3rd
November, 1986, (the earliest date convenient for the parties).
No agreement was reached at this conference and on 26th November,
1986, the matter was referred to the Labour Court for
investigation and recommendation. A Court hearing took place on
12th December, 1986.
Unions arguments:
3. (i) Three other managers who were retired by the Company
shortly before the worker concerned in this case were
each paid ex-gratia payments and redundancy payments.
In one of these cases, the manager was replaced shortly
afterwards, but in the other two cases no replacement
was made. When the Union raised this with the Company
originally, the Company claimed that the settlements
could not be repeated for the worker in this case,
because the other managers had not been replaced, but
this worker was in fact being replaced. To date
however the worker has not been replaced. The Company
has stated that the three other managers were paid
redundancy money and ex-gratia payments because there
were redundancy schemes in operation in the Company at
the time but that this did not apply at the time the
worker retired. There is now however a further
redundancy scheme in operation in the Company, and
there is therefore nothing to prevent the Company from
paying the amount requested.
(ii) The central issue in the case is that this worker
should be treated no less favourably than the other
five managers who went into retirement shortly before
him. To date, the Union have been given no reason as
to why these three managers should be treated more
favourably than the worker here concerned.
Companys arguments:
4. (a) The Company arranged for the retirement of the worker,
at his own request. He first became ill in June, 1985,
and full salary was paid up to April, 1986, when he was
retired on full pension. The worker received a tax
free lump sum, plus an annual entitlement (details with
Court). The Company in its on-going funding rate to
the Pension Fund, makes provision so that full pension
can be granted when unfortunate circumstances, such as
those involving this worker arise.
(b) The other persons cited by the Union were individuals
who were genuinely made redundant. The termination of
their employments was brought about by redundancy.
(c) The termination of the worker's employment resulted
from incapacity and for no other reason. Therefore he
cannot legitimately lay claim to a redundancy package.
(d) The Company has honoured in full its responsibilities
moral and otherwise, to the worker.
RECOMMENDATION:
7. The Court finds that there was no redundancy in this case and
the Court does not therefore recommend concession of the claim.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
John M. Horgan
_______________________
Chairman.
22nd January, 1987.
P.F./J.C.