Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD89241 Case Number: LCR12410 Section / Act: S20(1) Parties: BEAUMONT HOSPITAL - and - IRISH DISTRIBUTIVE AND ADMINISTRATIVE TRADE UNION |
Claim on behalf of a worker for enhanced redundancy payment.
Recommendation:
8. Having regard to the circumstances of the case the Court is of
the opinion that no addition to the workers statutory redundancy
entitlement is warranted. The Court does not therefore recommend
concession of this claim.
Division: Mr O'Connell Mr Shiel Mr Walsh
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD89241 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR12410
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 20(1)
PARTIES: BEAUMONT HOSPITAL
LOCAL GOVERNMENT STAFF NEGOTIATIONS BOARD
and
IRISH DISTRIBUTIVE AND ADMINISTRATIVE TRADE UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Claim on behalf of a worker for enhanced redundancy payment.
BACKGROUND:
2. The worker concerned was employed as a porter by St.
Laurence's Hospital in 1978. As a result of the closure of St.
Laurence's and the transfer of all its services to the new
Beaumont Hospital the worker applied for inclusion in the Public
Service Early Retirement Package. His application was rejected by
the Hospital.
3. The worker then referred his case to a Rights Commissioner (BC
210/87 refers) who recommended inter alia that the worker accept
the transfer to Beaumont Hospital, that he accept that the
Hospital's refusal to include him in the voluntary severance
package was due to the impartial implementation of universal
arrangements applying to that scheme. The Rights Commissioner
also recommended that the Hospital allow the worker a period of
seven days in order to decide whether he should transfer to
Beaumont Hospital or terminate his employment. The worker
subsequently appealed the recommendation to the Labour Court under
Section 13(9) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969. Following a
hearing the Court decided that the Rights Commissioner
Recommendation should stand (Appeal Decision No. AD1988 refers).
4. The worker then referred a case to the Employment Appeals
Tribunal. The Tribunal in case No. 422 M 1418 UD 348/88,
determined that the worker's dismissal was due to redundancy and
that he be paid the appropriate statutory redundancy lump sum.
The worker was subsequently paid his statutory redundancy lump
entitlements.
5. As a consequence of the Employment Appeals Tribunal Decision
the Union lodged a claim for the difference of the statutory
redundancy lump sum and the terms of the Public Service
Voluntary/Early Retirement Redundancy Package. This claim was
rejected by the Hospital. The Union then referred the issue to
the conciliation service of the Labour Court. The Hospital
declined an invitation to attend at a conciliation conference.
The Union referred the issue to the Labour Court for investigation
and recommendation under Section 20(1) of the Industrial Relations
Act, 1969. The worker agreed to be bound by the Court's
recommendation. A Court hearing was held on 18th May, 1989.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
6. 1. The worker was initially notified of his entitlements
under the Public Service Redundancy/Early Retirement Scheme.
He then applied to avail of the terms of the scheme and his
application was rejected. The Employment Appeals Tribunal has
subsequently determined that a redundancy situation had arisen
in the worker's case. He has been paid his statutory
redundancy entitlements. However the Hospital refuse to pay
him the terms of the Public Service Scheme. Accordingly the
Court is asked to recommend that he be paid the balance
between statutory redundancy and the Public Service Scheme.
HOSPITAL'S ARGUMENTS:
7. 1. The worker has been paid all monies due to him, the
dispute before the Court to-day is the same one which was the
subject of a Rights Commissioner's investigation and appeal by
the Labour Court where it was found that the worker was not
entitled to be included in the Public Service Redundancy/Early
Retirement Scheme. Accordingly he is not due any extra
payment.
RECOMMENDATION:
8. Having regard to the circumstances of the case the Court is of
the opinion that no addition to the workers statutory redundancy
entitlement is warranted. The Court does not therefore recommend
concession of this claim.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
John O'Connell
_____________________
25th May, 1989. Deputy Chairman
M.D./J.C.