Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD8810 Case Number: LCR11704 Section / Act: S20(1) Parties: EDUCATIONAL COMPANY OF IRELAND - and - A WORKER |
Claim, by the worker, for increased redundancy compensation.
Recommendation:
6. The Court, having considered the submissions made by the
parties does not recommend any improvement in the agreed
redundancy settlement.
Division: Mr Fitzgerald Mr Collins Mr Walsh
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD8810 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR11704
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 20(1)
PARTIES: EDUCATIONAL COMPANY OF IRELAND
(REPRESENTED BY THE FEDERATION OF EMPLOYERS)
and
A WORKER
SUBJECT:
1. Claim, by the worker, for increased redundancy compensation.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Company is engaged in the supply and distribution of
schoolbooks and artwork material to schools and booksellers
nationwide. The worker was originally employed as a packer in
February, 1965 but for the last five years of his employment he
was employed as a van driver on a weekly wage of #205.00. In
October, 1986, the Company discussed the need for one redundancy
with the Irish Transport and General Workers' Union of which this
worker was a member. The worker volunteered for redundancy,
subject to an acceptable compensatory package being made available
and this was conveyed to the management by the Union on 1st
December, 1986. The Company offered a voluntary redundancy
package to the worker which provided for a payment of #7,000
inclusive of all statutory entitlements and a commitment to offer
him first refusal should the Company wish to recruit temporary
staff in the future. An official of the Union accepted the
voluntary redundancy package on the worker's behalf by letter
dated 10th December, 1986. The worker was made redundant on 22nd
December, 1986 and accepted the agreed payment on the same date.
In June, 1987, the Company employed the worker in a temporary
capacity to provide relief cover until the end of September, 1987.
The worker resigned from this temporary employment on 16th July,
1987. The Company informed the Union that, in view of the
worker's resignation and the resulting staffing difficulties, it
was not in a position to offer further temporary employment to
him.
3. On 6th January, 1988, the worker wrote to the Labour Court
seeking a hearing under Section 20(1) of the Industrial Relations
Act, 1969, of a claim by him for increased redundancy
compensation. (He had previously sought to have this matter
investigated by a Rights Commissioner but the Company was
unwilling to attend such an investigation). The Court hearing
took place on 5th February, 1988. Prior to the hearing the worker
agreed to be bound by the Court's recommendation.
WORKER'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The worker considers that the redundancy compensation
payment made to him was inadequate, given the Company's
situation and his length of service.
2. The worker volunteered for redundancy because, over the
years, he had a number of "raw deals" from the Company. These
included the loss of a Company van and disputes concerning
protective clothing and weekly rather than monthly payment.
3. The worker considers that others who have left the Company
have received better redundancy compensation payments, given
their length of service.
4. The Union did not act in the best interests of the worker.
The worker was never a troublemaker and always worked hard.
5. The warehouse manager gave the worker the impression that
he was not wanted when he took up temporary employment in
June, 1987. For this reason, he resigned.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
5. 1. It had been the Company's intention to implement one
redundancy on a "last in, first out" basis. This worker would
not have been selected had this been the criterion used.
However, the worker himself volunteered for redundancy and the
Company reluctantly acceded to the Union's request on his
behalf that a redundancy settlement be negotiated.
2. The worker accepted a voluntary redundancy package. This
was confirmed, on his behalf, by his Union official, by letter
dated 10th December, 1986. The worker accepted the payment on
22nd December, 1986, the date of his redundancy. The Company
fully honoured the agreement made on the worker's redundancy
package.
3. The worker resigned from the temporary employment offered
to him in June, 1987.
4. The Company is not in a position to offer the worker any
further payment. This redundancy was implemented at
considerable cost, given that use of the "last in, first out"
formula would have been less expensive.
5. The Union was not prepared to make any representations on
the worker's behalf in relation to the present claim.
RECOMMENDATION:
6. The Court, having considered the submissions made by the
parties does not recommend any improvement in the agreed
redundancy settlement.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Nicholas Fitzgerald
________________________
23rd February, 1988. Deputy Chairman
A.K./J.C.