Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD8744 Case Number: LCR11067 Section / Act: S20(1) Parties: ESB - and - ESBOA |
Claim, for voluntary severance pay for one worker.
Recommendation:
5. The Court, has considered the submissions from both parties,
the code of Managerial and Staff Conduct and the terms of the 1984
Voluntary Severance Scheme agreed between the parties, which
includes a provision that the granting of absences under the
scheme is not obligatory. The Court is satisfied that Management
of the Board acted in accordance with the scheme and that there is
no obligation on the Board to extend the operation of the Special
Exit Scheme.
The Court accordingly does not recommend concession of the claim.
Division: Ms Owens Mr McHenry Mr O'Murchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD8744 THE LABOUR COURT LCR11067
SECTION 20(1) INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969
RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR11067
Parties: ELECTRICITY SUPPLY BOARD
and
ELECTRICITY SUPPLY BOARD OFFICERS ASSOCIATION
Subject:
1. Claim, for voluntary severance pay for one worker.
Background:
2. In February, 1984, the worker expressed an interest in the
Voluntary Severance Scheme (V.S.S.) operated in the E.S.B. The
conditions of the scheme are as follows:-
- The Scheme is voluntary on both sides. This means that
no employee will be forced to participate against
his/her will. There is no obligation on the E.S.B. to
release any employee whom it wishes to retain in its
service.
- Inclusion of an employee in the Scheme must result in a
job at the same or a comparable level being dropped
from the payroll.
- No recruitment will result from any such voluntary
severance.
The worker was subsequently advised that as there were no surplus
officers to fill the position vacated by her, she was not eligible
for the scheme but her interest would be kept in mind.
In March, 1985, the worker applied for special leave of absence
for one year but was informed that due to staffing difficulties
this was not possible and that there was no likelihood of the
V.S.S. being extended to her grade in the foreseeable future.
Arising from this the worker resigned in April, 1985. In
December, 1985, as a result of a re-organisation, a special exit
scheme was introduced for a limited period for staff with over
five years' service. The scheme was to cater for any staff who
did not wish to be relocated, due to the re-organisation but would
prefer to terminate their employment. Most of these would not be
eligible for the V.S.S. The worker sought the application of the
special exit scheme in her case, although she had already
resigned, because she felt she had been misled by the E.S.B.
statement that the V.S.S. would not be extended in the foreseeable
future. The E.S.B. was not prepared to consider the application
of the worker since she had already left the E.S.B. The
Association referred the matter to the Industrial Council who
stated on 1st October, 1986, that it was not empowered to
investigate the case. On 6th January, 1987, the Association
referred the matter to the Labour Court, under Section 20(1) of
the Industrial Relations Act, 1969, for investigation and
recommendation. The Court investigated the dispute on 26th
February, 1987. Prior to the investigation the Association gave
an undertaking to accept the recommendation of the Court.
Association's arguments:
3. (a) Some 49 surplus staff, at the same grade as the worker
concerned were identified between March, 1984, and
March, 1985, in either Head Office or in the worker's
own branch. All of these surplus workers would have
been able to undertake the job being done by the worker
concerned.
(b) In March, 1985, when the worker reapplied for special
leave or redundancy, the E.S.B. had plans to close the
worker's branch and relocate the staff. The
re-organisation plans also envisaged a reduction in the
number of staff at the same grade as the worker
concerned.
(c) The E.S.B., in March, 1985, had plans for a further
Exit Scheme which formed the basis of the one which
emerged in December, 1985. Further, the Association
contends that the E.S.B. misinformed the worker in
order to leave her no option but to resign.
Board's arguments:
4. (i) The worker was advised that she was not eligible for
the V.S.S. as she would have to be replaced. The
scheme is totally voluntary, with the E.S.B. having the
final say as to whether it is applied or not. This
position has been upheld by the Industrial Council
(ii) At the time when the worker concerned resigned, the
E.S.B.'s statement that the scheme would not be
extended in the foreseeable future to her grade, was an
honest statement. There was no intention to mislead.
In March, 1985, there were no plans under consideration
to deal with exit applications from the particular
grade of worker.
(iii) The special exit scheme was advised to the Association
some 9 months after the worker's resignation. The
purpose of the scheme is to cater for those affected by
the re-organisation, and there is no obligation on the
E.S.B. to release any employee.
(iv) The scheme was intended to encourage resignation which
might not otherwise have occurred, as a solution to an
emerging problem for some staff and was not intended to
confer payment to staff who had already resigned for
their own reasons.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. The Court, has considered the submissions from both parties,
the code of Managerial and Staff Conduct and the terms of the 1984
Voluntary Severance Scheme agreed between the parties, which
includes a provision that the granting of absences under the
scheme is not obligatory. The Court is satisfied that Management
of the Board acted in accordance with the scheme and that there is
no obligation on the Board to extend the operation of the Special
Exit Scheme.
The Court accordingly does not recommend concession of the claim.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Evelyn Owens.
________________________
Deputy Chairman.
13th May, 1987.
B.O'N./J.C.