Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD87724 Case Number: AD881 Section / Act: S13(9) Parties: BIJUR LUBRICATION LIMITED - and - A WORKER |
Appeal by a worker against Rights Commissioner's recommendation CW 56/87 concerning extra statutory redundancy payment.
Recommendation:
I recommend that the Company offers, as a goodwill gesture
(without precedent and without prejudice) to the worker the
sum of #1,000 (or the redundancy rebate, whichever is the
greater) on the basis that he accepts it in settlement of
this dispute".
(The worker was mentioned by name in the Rights
Commissioner's recommendation).
4. The Rights Commissioner's recommendation was not acceptable to
the worker concerned and on 31st August, 1987, he appealed it to
the Labour Court, under Section 13(9) of the Industrial Relations
Act, 1969. A Court hearing took place on 8th December, 1987, in
Limerick.
WORKER'S ARGUMENTS:
5. 1. The worker contends that the Company did not provide him
with enough time to negotiate a redundancy settlement. The
Company also assured him that no-one would be offered more
than #2,500.
2. The worker was earning #50 per week more than the two
women who also chose voluntary redundancy. Both these women
had the same years of service, yet one received #4,500 and
the other received #3,600.
3. The worker maintains that at the Rights Commissioner's
hearing the Company said the reason the two women received
more money was because they were surplus to requirements,
while he was not. However, one of the females had in fact
been requested by the Company to stay on.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
6. 1. The Company argues that the worker concerned was not
considered for enhanced payments for a number of reasons.
The worker approached the Company and accepted the sum
offered without any form of dissatisfaction being indicated.
The agreed settlement was based on the individual
circumstances of the case. The worker was not given any
indication that the conditions agreed with him would apply to
other staff members in the future.
2. The Company believe that the conclusions reached by the
Rights Commissioner, based upon the facts as he established
them, are incorrect both from a legal and industrial
relations perspective and therefore, should not be upheld by
the Court. The Rights Commissioner made it clear that the
Company acted within the law and that the worker "severed any
right to claim further". In view of this the Company cannot
see grounds for compensation in the form of a good will
gesture.
3. The Rights Commissioner found that the settlement agreed
upon was concluded on an offer and acceptance basis and that
the legal discharge signed by the worker is valid. However,
the Rights Commissioner wishes to leave this aside. To do
this would have many long term implications.
4. The Rights Commissioner said that staff being made
redundant can "generally expect and receive sums in excess of
statutory redundancy". This may be the case where it is the
Company that is seeking redundancies and is attempting to
encourage volunteers by a negotiated severance package. In
this case it was the worker who approached the Company.
DECISION:
7. The Court, having considered the evidence from both parties,
is of the view that the Rights Commissioner's recommendation is
not unreasonable in the circumstances and should be implemented.
The Court so decides.
Division: Ms Owens Mr Shiel Mr O'Murchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD87724 DECISION NO. AD188
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 13(9)
PARTIES: BIJUR LUBRICATION LIMITED
(Represented by the Federated Union of Employers)
and
A WORKER
SUBJECT:
1. Appeal by a worker against Rights Commissioner's
recommendation CW 56/87 concerning extra statutory redundancy
payment.
BACKGROUND:
2. The worker concerned claims that he was approached by the
Company on 15th January, 1987, regarding his willingness to accept
voluntary redundancy. He agreed to accept voluntary redundancy if
the terms were right. The Company offered him a sum, based on his
10 years service, which he agreed to consider. The next day he
signed the relevant forms and received a cheque for #2,628.36.
This amount covered his statutory redundancy and all other
entitlements. The worker concerned understood that the Company
had stated that any other volunteers would be paid on the same
basis. However, he later discovered that two female employees,
with the same service, had received substantially more money than
he had. The Company contended that the worker had voluntarily
approached the Company seeking redundancy and accepted the
Company's offer. He signed the appropriate release forms and a
discharge in full and final settlement. The Company argued that
it has every right to make individual settlements as circumstances
dictated. The Company also denied that any promise was given to
the worker regarding subsequent redundancy payments.
3. The worker concerned referred the matter to a Rights
Commissioner for recommendation. On 21st July, 1987, the Rights
Commissioner issued the following findings and recommendation -
'FINDINGS
I accept that the worker concerned was not enticed into
accepting the sum which was offered. I also accept that the
legal discharge is valid. There is some conflicts in the
different statements as who made the first move and, whether
there was an explicit undertaking by the Company. By signing
the discharge the worker effectively severed any right to
claim further against the Company whatever previous
situations existed, or subsequent events disclosed.
However, leaving the foregoing aside, I believe there is some
merit in the worker's contention from a purely Industrial
Relations point of view. Employees can generally expect and
receive sums in excess of statutory redundancy in an on-going
trading situation. As it was known that the Company had
difficulties at the time the worker's expectations must be
appropriately modified.
RECOMMENDATION
I recommend that the Company offers, as a goodwill gesture
(without precedent and without prejudice) to the worker the
sum of #1,000 (or the redundancy rebate, whichever is the
greater) on the basis that he accepts it in settlement of
this dispute".
(The worker was mentioned by name in the Rights
Commissioner's recommendation).
4. The Rights Commissioner's recommendation was not acceptable to
the worker concerned and on 31st August, 1987, he appealed it to
the Labour Court, under Section 13(9) of the Industrial Relations
Act, 1969. A Court hearing took place on 8th December, 1987, in
Limerick.
WORKER'S ARGUMENTS:
5. 1. The worker contends that the Company did not provide him
with enough time to negotiate a redundancy settlement. The
Company also assured him that no-one would be offered more
than #2,500.
2. The worker was earning #50 per week more than the two
women who also chose voluntary redundancy. Both these women
had the same years of service, yet one received #4,500 and
the other received #3,600.
3. The worker maintains that at the Rights Commissioner's
hearing the Company said the reason the two women received
more money was because they were surplus to requirements,
while he was not. However, one of the females had in fact
been requested by the Company to stay on.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
6. 1. The Company argues that the worker concerned was not
considered for enhanced payments for a number of reasons.
The worker approached the Company and accepted the sum
offered without any form of dissatisfaction being indicated.
The agreed settlement was based on the individual
circumstances of the case. The worker was not given any
indication that the conditions agreed with him would apply to
other staff members in the future.
2. The Company believe that the conclusions reached by the
Rights Commissioner, based upon the facts as he established
them, are incorrect both from a legal and industrial
relations perspective and therefore, should not be upheld by
the Court. The Rights Commissioner made it clear that the
Company acted within the law and that the worker "severed any
right to claim further". In view of this the Company cannot
see grounds for compensation in the form of a good will
gesture.
3. The Rights Commissioner found that the settlement agreed
upon was concluded on an offer and acceptance basis and that
the legal discharge signed by the worker is valid. However,
the Rights Commissioner wishes to leave this aside. To do
this would have many long term implications.
4. The Rights Commissioner said that staff being made
redundant can "generally expect and receive sums in excess of
statutory redundancy". This may be the case where it is the
Company that is seeking redundancies and is attempting to
encourage volunteers by a negotiated severance package. In
this case it was the worker who approached the Company.
DECISION:
7. The Court, having considered the evidence from both parties,
is of the view that the Rights Commissioner's recommendation is
not unreasonable in the circumstances and should be implemented.
The Court so decides.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Evelyn Owens
_________________________
7th January, 1988
B.O'N./P.W. Deputy Chairman