Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD8837 Case Number: AD888 Section / Act: S13(9) Parties: DUBLIN PLANT HIRE - and - IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION |
Appeal, by both parties, against a Rights Commissioner's recommendation (CM/17847) concerning extra statutory redundancy compensation.
Recommendation:
5. Having considered the submissions made by the parties, the
Court finds no grounds for altering the Rights Commissoner's
recommendation which it upholds.
The Court so decides.
Division: Mr Fitzgerald Mr Heffernan Ms Ni Mhurchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD8837 APPEAL DECISION NO. AD888
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 13(9)
PARTIES: DUBLIN PLANT HIRE
(REPRESENTED BY THE CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY FEDERATION)
and
IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Appeal, by both parties, against a Rights Commissioner's
recommendation (CM/17847) concerning extra statutory redundancy
compensation.
BACKGROUND:
2. In early 1986 the Company declared four fitters redundant and
paid them their statutory redundancy entitlements. The Union
sought extra statutory compensation but this claim was rejected by
the Company. The claim was referred to a Rights Commissioner in
the case of one of the four individuals and the Rights
Commissioner, on 28th April, 1986, recommended as follows:-
"The case I have investigated is Mr. X's* so I do not know
what merits would be in the case of the others. His
position is certainly touching and compelling and I think
the Company ought to add something to his statutory payment:
I recommend 60% of it."
*The worker was named in the Rights Commissioner's
recommendation.
The Union sought application of this recommendation to the four
former employees while the Company was prepared to implement it
only in the case of the one named individual. The amounts
involved in the case of the other three would be approximately
#346, #173 and #520 respectively. This matter was the subject of
a Labour Court hearing on 13th April, 1987. The Union argued that
the case taken to the Rights Commissioner was a test case and that
the recommendation should apply to all four. The Company refuted
this. The Court, on 18th May, 1987, wrote to the parties stating:
"...Because of the conflict of evidence, the Court considers
it should regard the hearing as adjourned so as to allow the
parties a further opportunity to resolve the matter. The
Court believes that this can best be achieved by the parties
arranging to have the cases of the other three workers
investigated by the Rights Commissioner."
The Rights Commissioner investigated the case of the three other
workers and on 22nd July, 1987 issue recommendation CM/17847 which
stated as follows:
"Mr. X was awarded an additional payment of 60% of his
statutory entitlement entirely on compassionate grounds and I
am aware that it is not customary to exceed statutory
obligations in the Construction Industry. This case has not
however been presented by the Union on any basis other than
that there was an agreement, or at least an understanding,
between them and the Company to regard the outcome of the
(named) case as the conclusion for all four.
There is no reconciling the opposing records or recollections
so I am recommending that the Company concede to each of the
three claimants, ex gratia, 30% of his statutory payment. If
this Recommendation is accepted and implemented its terms may
not constitute any precedent whatsoever for the Company or
the Industry. It is being made only for the particular
factors in this case of three people."
The Company was not prepared to implement this recommendation.
The Union appealed the recommendation to the Labour Court under
Section 13(9) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969, on 1st
October, 1987, due to its non implementation. The Construction
Industry Federation also appealed the recommendation to the Court,
on 19th January, 1988, on behalf of the Company. The Court
considered the appeal on 11th February, 1988.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Union brought the case of one individual to the Rights
Commissioner as a test case. It was understood and agreed
that the Rights Commissioner's recommendation would apply to
all four individuals. The Union is therefore seeking payment
of #346.56, #173.28 and #519.84 respectively to the other
three individuals, in line with the Rights Commissioner's
first recommendation.
2. The amounts of money involved are minimal and would not
represnt a high cost to the Company.
3. The question of precedent has been clearly dealt with by
the Rights Commissioner. Management cannot, therefore, argue
that concession of the claim would have repercussive effects.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The original Rights Commissioner's recommendation was made
solely on compassionate grounds. There was no understanding
that it would apply to the other three individuals who have
very different personal circumstances.
4. 2. There has never been any provision for enhanced redundancy
payment in the construction industry. In the case of 54 other
employees made redundant by the Company, only statutory
entitlements have been paid.
3. The Labour Court has, in various cases, rejected claims
for extra statutory redundancy compensation, within the
construction industry.
DECISION:
5. Having considered the submissions made by the parties, the
Court finds no grounds for altering the Rights Commissoner's
recommendation which it upholds.
The Court so decides.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Nicholas Fitzgerald
_________________________
1st March, 1988 Deputy Chairman.
A.K./J.C.