Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD89287 Case Number: AD8942 Section / Act: S13(9) Parties: SKERRIES SHIRT COMPANY LIMITED - and - IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION |
Appeal by the Company against Rights Commissioner's Recommendation No. ST 69/89 regarding the selection of a worker for redundancy.
Recommendation:
1989
Division: Mr Fitzgerald Mr McHenry Mr O'Murchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD89287 APPEAL DECISION NO. AD4289
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 13(9)
PARTIES: SKERRIES SHIRT COMPANY LIMITED
and
IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Appeal by the Company against Rights Commissioner's
Recommendation No. ST 69/89 regarding the selection of a worker
for redundancy.
BACKGROUND:
2. The worker concerned in this dispute was employed by the
Company from 13th June, 1988 to 7th February, 1989, as an
examiner. She was made redundant in February because of the
reduction in the number of orders for a certain style of high
quality shirt. The Company contend that this reduction made the
worker's post redundant. As she was the last person employed in
that area the Company felt that she was the natural first choice
for redundancy. The Company does concede that there were certain
difficulties with the workers performance, but insists that those
were not the reason for the termination of her employment. The
Union considered that the suggestions made against the worker were
unfair and unjustified. It also felt that the reason for her
being let go was not redundancy. The matter was referred to a
Rights Commissioner for investigation and recommendation. On 10th
April, 1989 the Rights Commissioner issued the following
recommendation:
"In the circumstances that the Company did employ other
workers to do the work which the claimant felt she was
capable of performing I recommend that she receives the sum
of #200 in full and final settlement of all her claims."
The Company did not feel that the Rights Commissioner's
recommendation was justified as it contended that the worker had
been let go for genuine reasons of redundancy, and that her
position has not been filled since. On 18th April, 1989 the
Company appealed the Rights Commissioner's Recommendation to the
Labour Court. A Court hearing took place in Dublin on 19th May,
1989.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. There is no justification for the hiring of a new worker
as has occurred in the Company, given that the reason for the
alleged "redundancy" was that there was not sufficient work.
The worker concerned should have been given the option of
transferring to where the vacancy was and being retrained.
The worker who was brought in to replace her had to be trained
anyway. Any contention that the worker would not be suitable
for such retraining is completely fraudulent. She has had
experience working in the factory prior to her employment as
an examiner.
2. At the Rights Commissioner's hearing which the worker was
unable to attend, the Company stated that the worker had a
poor attendance record and that she had left the factory on
several occasions without permission. The worker refutes
these allegations and, despite the Company having a
comprehensive system of warnings, she was never warned about
any aspects of her work.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. Management carefully considered the worker's position in
the Company, and decided that there was no alternative to
redundancy. The worker was employed on a manual operation.
Most other operations in the Company are on a sewing machine.
The Company had been fortunate in not having to deal with
redundancy in the past, but would at all times maintain that
employee skills and production needs are relevant in the
selection of personnel for redundancy. The worker was not the
last person to be employed in the factory, but she was the
last person employed in her particular area. Accordingly, the
Company was justified in letting her go.
2. The worker's record had not been satisfactory. There had
been a problem in regard her attendance and her performance
had been well below the level that the Company deems
acceptable. It was felt that the worker's record did not give
the Company grounds to either make another worker redundant,
or to keep the worker in employment until a suitable vacancy
arose.
3. No disciplinary action was taken against the worker. She
was let go because of a genuine redundancy situation, and her
position has not been filled since. The Company believes that
the worker was treated fairly. She received her redundancy
entitlement and the Company does not see how it could have
handled the matter differently. The payment of the #200 would
set an unreasonable precedent as it seems to be a purely
arbitrary figure arrived at with a view to bringing the matter
to an end. The Company asks the Court to uphold its position.
DECISION:
5. Having considered the submissions made by the parties, the
Court is of the view that the worker concerned was let go because
of redundancy and considers that she was not unfairly dismissed.
The Court therefore upholds the Company's appeal. The Court so
decides.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Nicholas Fitzgerald
________________________
8th June, 1989. Deputy Chairman
P.F./J.C.