Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD903 Case Number: AD9014 Section / Act: S13(9) Parties: TEXACO (IRELAND) LIMITED - and - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL AND TECHNICAL UNION |
Appeal by the Union against Rights Commissioner's recommendation No. C.W. 222/89 concerning a Worker's redundancy package.
Recommendation:
10. Having considered the submission from the parties the Court
finds no evidence which would justify altering the Rights
Commissioner's Recommendation.
The Court accordingly rejects the appeal.
Division: Ms Owens Mr McHenry Mr O'Murchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD903 APPEAL DECISION NO. AD1490
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 13(9)
PARTIES: TEXACO (IRELAND) LIMITED
(REPRESENTED BY THE FEDERATION OF IRISH EMPLOYERS)
AND
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL AND TECHNICAL UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Appeal by the Union against Rights Commissioner's
recommendation No. C.W. 222/89 concerning a Worker's redundancy
package.
BACKGROUND:
2. In November, 1988, following many meetings, the Company
presented a Corporate Recovery Plan to the Unions. The Plan was
the method adopted by the Company to reduce what it considered to
be the unacceptably high distribution costs. The Plan provided
for the contracting out of distribution and major changes in
operating procedures including a reduction in manning levels.
3. The Company undertook to negotiate with the Union on the
financial package and method of selection for redundancy for
employees involved (reduced from 225 to 128). Between November,
1988 and January, 1989 a financial package and method of selection
was agreed between the Company and Union. In addition, it was
agreed that the Company would engage the services of specialist
agencies to advise on the tax implications of the various options
on offer. It was also agreed that as far as possible the newly
appointed contractors would recruit former Texaco staff.
4. The severance terms covered two categories of workers (those
over the age of 50 and those under the age of 50), provided for
several options (details supplied to the Court).
5. The worker here concerned, who is under 50 and has 18 years'
service with the Company, selected Option 1 which provided for the
payment of an immediate pension, tax free lump-sum payment,
lump-sum payment subject to tax and statutory redundancy lump-sum
payment.
6. The worker subsequently queried his severance terms,
specifically the non payment of a temporary supplement. The
matter was referred to a Rights Commissioner for investigation and
recommendation. The Rights Commissioner investigated the dispute
on 25th September, 1989 and on the 4th October, issued the
following recommendation:-
" I recommend that the Union and the worker accept that he
has no entitlement to the annual temporary supplement under
the severance scheme, and that his pension and lump-sum
benefits have been correctly paid."
The worker was referred to by name in the Rights Commissioner's
Recommendation.
7. The Union appealed the Rights Commissioner's recommendation to
the Labour Court under Section 13(9) of the Industrial Relations
Act, 1969. The Court heard the appeal on the 22nd February, 1989.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
8. 1. During the course of negotiations the Union sought to have
the temporary supplement payable to cover those under the age
of 50. The temporary supplement is paid until the individual
reaches age 66 and qualifies for the Old Age Pension. This
claim was not conceded by the Company during the negotiations.
2. Each individual being made redundant privately received a
Company document setting out their entitlements under the
package and were subsequently called to the Terminal Managers
office to sign for the option of his choice. The worker here
concerned on the last day of his employment met with a Company
representative who explained in detail his entitlements under
the option selected by him. The worker is adamant that he was
informed that in addition to his pension entitlement he would
receive the supplement payment from the Company plus an annual
increase at the discretion of the Company. In reply to other
questions he was informed that the pension would be payable
some time later. When the worker did not receive the
supplementary payment subsequently he queried same. He was
informed that the representative he had being dealing with had
since retired, that there was no record of any such agreement
being made and that he had been paid his correct entitlements.
3. The worker selected Option 1 because he did not want to
severe his link with the Company and wanted to remain in its
employment. He was therefore an unwilling recipient of the
terms offered to him. The Union contend that as the Company
representative made the statement to the worker concerned
regarding his entitlement to the supplementary payment he
committed the Company to honouring that statement. Since the
worker is the only one under 50 who selected this option the
honouring of the verbal agreement would not have any
significant effect on the Company. In an attempt to
co-operate with the Company the worker suggested that
supplementary payment commence when he reaches 50. Even this
was rejected by the Company.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
9. 1. During November, 1988 and January, 1989 the Company and
Union negotiated and agreed a package of severance terms in
respect of 127 workers who were leaving the Company. These
terms which were balloted on were totally complied with by the
Union and the Company. All workers were individually advised
in writing of the specific monetary benefits available to them
under the various options available in the severance package.
2. The worker here concerned selected Option 1 and his choice
was implemented in accordance with the Agreement. The worker
subsequently visited the Company claiming he should be paid
temporary supplement to his pension which he alleged an
officer of the Company had offered to him on his day of
leaving, i.e. seven days after he had indicated in writing his
acceptance of Option 1. The representative concerned, who is
an experienced pension officer, denies categorically that any
such offer was made and the Company accepts this statement.
3. The Company is confident that it has acted totally within
both the letter and spirit of the Agreement reached with the
Union. In all the circumstances the Company submits that the
Rights Commissioner was correct in finding that all payments
due had been made to the worker and that there are no grounds
for altering his recommendation.
DECISION:
10. Having considered the submission from the parties the Court
finds no evidence which would justify altering the Rights
Commissioner's Recommendation.
The Court accordingly rejects the appeal.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court,
Evelyn Owens
___18th___April,___1990. ___________________
M. D. / M. F. Deputy Chairman