Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD8848 Case Number: LCR11782 Section / Act: S20(1) Parties: REHABILITATION INSTITUTE - and - IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION |
Claim, on behalf of one worker for enhanced redundancy compensation.
Recommendation:
5. The Court recommends that the worker concerned accepts the
redundancy terms negotiated on a national basis with the Union.
Division: Mr O'Connell Mr Heffernan Mr Walsh
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD8848 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR11782
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 20(1)
PARTIES: REHABILITATION INSTITUTE
(REPRESENTED BY THE FEDERATION UNION OF EMPLOYERS)
and
IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Claim, on behalf of one worker for enhanced redundancy
compensation.
BACKGROUND:
2. The worker was employed on a part-time basis at the
Institute's Tullamore centre since June, 1984. She worked an
average of twenty five hours per week and performed canteen and
cleaning duties. The Institute, having decided to provide more
extensive canteen facilities, advertised in late 1987 for a
catering supervisor. This worker applied for the job. By letter
dated 26th November, 1987 she was informed that her application
had been unsuccessful and also that her duties were to change to
cleaning duties only and that she would be required to work only
ten hours per week in future. This was unacceptable to the
worker. Subsequently, following representations by the Union on
her behalf, management offered the reduced working week plus a
payment of #553.80 gross in compensation or redundancy
compensation of #846. The worker opted for redundancy, reserving
the right to process a claim for enhanced redundancy compensation.
On 14th January, 1988 the Union referred the matter to the Labour
Court under Section 20(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969.
The hearing took place on 17th February, in Tullamore. Prior to
the hearing, the Union agreed to be bound by the Court's
recommendation.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The worker concerned has high academic qualifications and
considerable experience and expertise in the food and catering
industry. The Union contends that she should have been
afforded an opportunity to demonstrate her ability to fill the
post of catering supervisor. Instead of this she was offered
a severe reduction in hours and cleaning duties only. It is
considered that she was harshly treated.
3. 2. This is not a normal redundancy situation as a large
proportion of the worker's duties still require to be
performed. The worker was misled into believing that her
services were valued and that she would be required on an
on-going basis. Instead, she was declared "surplus to
requirement". The Union is seeking payment of five weeks' pay
per year of service which, in the light of her short service
and low rate of pay, is not an excessive sum. The sum offered
is not a sum agreed nationally with the Union, as the
Institute contends.
INSTITUTE'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. In extending the catering facilities the Institute
required a trained professional cook to accord with C.E.R.T.
requirements. The worker applied for the job but her
qualifications were not suitable. Many of her previous duties
were subsumed by the new post. However, cleaning duties
remained and she was given the option of retaining these,
working approximately ten hours per week. She was offered
compensation for loss of earnings.
2. When the worker opted for redundancy she was offered the
terms of a formula agreed nationally with the Union i.e.
statutory entitlement plus two weeks' pay per year of service.
3. The formula offered is a reasonable one and departure from
it in this case would have serious repercussive effects for
the Institute.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. The Court recommends that the worker concerned accepts the
redundancy terms negotiated on a national basis with the Union.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
John O'Connell
___________________
8th April, 1988
A.K./J.C. Deputy Chairman.