Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD90734 Case Number: AD9111 Section / Act: S13(9) Parties: P.J. WALLS (DUBLIN) LIMITED - and - A WORKER |
Appeal by the worker of Rights Commissioner's recommendation No. CW178/90 concerning his alleged unfair redundancy.
Recommendation:
5. Having considered the submissions from the parties the Court
is of the view that the recommendation of the Rights Commissioner
was reasonable in the circumstances and should be upheld.
The Court accordingly rejects the appeal and so decides.
Division: Ms Owens Mr Collins Mr Walsh
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD90734 APPEAL DECISION NO. AD1191
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 13(9)
PARTIES: P.J. WALLS (DUBLIN) LIMITED
(Represented by the Construction Industry Federation)
and
A WORKER
SUBJECT:
1. Appeal by the worker of Rights Commissioner's recommendation
No. CW178/90 concerning his alleged unfair redundancy.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Company is a building and civil engineering firm and is
normally engaged in a number of contracts throughout the country.
The worker concerned was employed as a carpenter with the Company
on 12th June, 1989. His final location with the Company was on a
site at Radio Telefis Eireann (R.T.E.). During the summer of 1990
a number of the Company's contracts were being completed,
including the one at the R.T.E. site, and the Company made a
number of their employees redundant. The worker concerned was one
of those employees made redundant. His employment terminated on
20th July, 1990. The worker maintained that the Company had
promised him in early July, 1990, that he would be "fixed up" with
another job but instead of this he was made redundant. The worker
felt that this was unfair and that he was entitled to better
treatment. The matter was referred to a Rights Commissioner for
investigation. On 20th November, 1990, the Rights Commissioner
issued the following recommendation-
"I recommend that the worker accepts that his redundancy
was fair at the end of a particular contract and that
the Company did not depart from its normal practice in
his case."
(The worker was named in the Rights Commissioner's
recommendation).
The worker concerned rejected the Rights Commissioner's
recommendation and on 20th December, 1990, he appealed it to the
Labour Court under Section 13(9) of the Industrial Relations Act,
1969. The Court heard the appeal on 24th January, 1991.
WORKER'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The worker concerned had been employed by the Company
for over a year. During that period he was a diligent
employee. In view of this he feels he was treated
particularly poorly.
3. 2. The worker concerned believes that the Company had
sufficient work on hand to keep him in full-time employment or
failing that at least some short-time working.
3. Since being made redundant he has not been notified of
any vacancies that have arisen despite the fact that the
Company has taken on workers since July, 1990.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The worker, who was employed as a carpenter, was made
redundant along with six other carpenters employed at the
R.T.E. site. A second site at College Green, Dublin, was also
coming to completion during the same month and carpenters at
that site were also made redundant. Therefore, a claim for
unfair selection for redundancy cannot be substantiated.
2. The worker concerned was one of the last carpenters made
redundant at the R.T.E. site. The Company had no complaints
about his work, they simply had no other work for him or the
other carpenters let go at the same time.
3. There was no question at any time of a guarantee being
given to the worker of securing suitable alternative
employment. The site manager did say that he would endeavour
to secure other employment if possible. However, he was
unsuccessful.
DECISION:
5. Having considered the submissions from the parties the Court
is of the view that the recommendation of the Rights Commissioner
was reasonable in the circumstances and should be upheld.
The Court accordingly rejects the appeal and so decides.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Evelyn Owens
14th February, 1991 -------------
B O'N/U.S. Deputy Chairman