Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD90101 Case Number: LCR12823 Section / Act: S20(1) Parties: BORD NA MONA - and - MANUFACTURING SCIENCE AND FINANCE |
Claim for redundancy payments for a worker.
Recommendation:
5. Having considered the submissions from the parties and in
particular noting the terms of the letter of appointment given to
the claimant, the Court finds no grounds for recommending
concession of the Union's claim.
Division: Ms Owens Mr McHenry Mr O'Murchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD90101 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR12823
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 20(1)
PARTIES: BORD NA MONA
AND
MANUFACTURING SCIENCE AND FINANCE
SUBJECT:
1. Claim for redundancy payments for a worker.
BACKGROUND:
2. The claimant joined the Company on 1/10/84 as a junior
mechanical engineer under its four year post graduate training
scheme. In the course of his training he was located for periods
at various Works in the country and finished his period of
training in the Drawing Office in Dublin having been transferred
there in May, 1988. On completion of the training programme he
was appointed to the graded staff in September, 1988. His letter
of appointment dated 12.9.88 reads:-
" Initially you will remain at your present headquarters
and duties but may be transferred at the discretion of
the General Operations Manager, or until such times as
you are appointed to a particular permanent position."
Management claims that this stipulation was put in his letter of
appointment because of the pending divisionalisation and
decentralisation of the Company which would entail all engineering
services being based at country locations. In 1989, the Company
introduced a voluntary redundancy package. Because there was
unlikely to be engineering jobs in Dublin and because he was
unwilling to move location, the claimant applied for voluntary
redundancy. This was refused and he subsequently resigned from
the Company on the 10th November, 1989. The Union, on his behalf,
subsequently sought to have the voluntary redundancy package
extended to him but the Company again refused. As the Company was
unwilling to attend either a Rights Commissioner hearing or a
conciliation conference, the Union referred the matter to the
Labour Court under Section 20(1) of the Industrial Relations Act,
1969 on the 13th February, 1990, agreeing to be bound by the
Court's recommendation. A Court hearing was held on the 22nd
March, 1990.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. Part of the Company's restructuring programme meant that
there would be no work for engineers in the Dublin area. In
September, 1989 most people were aware of their likely move
outside Dublin and were informed by the Chief Executive in a
letter of 7th September, 1989 that those who were not prepared
to move should seek other employment (details supplied to the
Court).
2. In September, 1989, the claimant decided that as he was
not prepared to move outside Dublin he had to seek other
employment. He therefore sought employment elsewhere in the
Dublin area. When he applied for the redundancy package he
was refused despite the fact that the Company could not
guarantee his position as a mechanical engineer within the
Dublin area.
3. The Company has clearly outlined that there are
redundancies in the engineering area. It has also clearly
indicated that there is no work in the Dublin area for the
claimant. It is saying however that he was aware on
appointment that he could be moved to a new location. Whether
or not this was true the member himself found as a result of
the complete restructuring of the Company that his expectancy
to work in Dublin had been changed beyond recognition. In
other words, on his appointment it was reasonable to assume
that he had a 90% chance of continuing to work in Dublin, now
that had been reduced to nil. He had no alternative but to
seek employment which he eventually got in the Dublin area.
The Company was totally unreasonable in withholding the
redundancy package in the circumstances.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. In administering the Voluntary Redundancy it is
Management's responsibility to ensure that the proper number
and calibre of people are retained in the Company for its
continued viability.
2. When the claimant's request for Voluntary Redundancy was
refused, he was told by his Departmental Head that he was one
of the young engineers that was needed for the future
development of the Company.
3. His letter of appointment to the graded staff stated that
he was liable to be transferred. Furthermore, the Task Force
Report on the future of the Company which was in circulation
at that time, showed that all Engineering Services would be
located in decentralised divisions and none would be located
in Dublin.
4. The claimant is one of a number of staff members who
resigned of their own volition even though they had been
refused the Voluntary Redundancy Package. Furthermore, there
are approximately 200 applications for Voluntary Redundancy
which have not been approved.