Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD9122 Case Number: AD9115 Section / Act: S13(9) Parties: TECHNICON (IRELAND) LIMITED - and - MANUFACTURING SCIENCE FINANCE |
Appeal by the Union against Rights Commissioner's Recommendation No. C.W. 207/90 concerning the proposed redundancy of one secretary.
Recommendation:
5. In considering the circumstances of this case as described
by the parties in their oral and written submissions the Court has
taken account of the effect of the passage of time since the
Rights Commissioner's recommendation.
In all the circumstances the Court takes the view that the issue
should be resolved by the payment to the worker of #13,543 in full
and final settlement of the matter.
Division: MrMcGrath Mr Keogh Mr Rorke
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD9122 APPEAL DECISION NO. AD1591
THE LABOUR COURT
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 13(9), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969
PARTIES: TECHNICON (IRELAND) LIMITED
(Represented by the Federation of Irish Employers)
AND
MANUFACTURING SCIENCE FINANCE
SUBJECT:
1. Appeal by the Union against Rights Commissioner's
Recommendation No. C.W. 207/90 concerning the proposed redundancy
of one secretary.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Company employs 2 secretaries to meet its secretarial
requirements. In February, 1990 the Company proposed a
re-organisation of secretarial services resulting in the
redundancy of one secretary. The worker concerned, who had the
shortest service of the 2 secretaries, was offered alternative
employment in an assembly department as no other secretarial
position was available within the Company. This offer was
rejected by the Union and further discussions took place at local
level. The Company made the following offer on 8th May, 1990:-
2.1 A "forced" redundancy computation at 4 weeks pay per
year of service, together with twice legal minimum
notice. This amounts to #9,108.
2.2 In addition one month's notice would be given to the
worker before redundancy took effect. During this
time the Company would facilitate her in every way by
giving time off to attend interviews, etc. Should the
worker elect to leave the Company immediately salary
for this period would be paid in lieu. This would
amount to #1,150.
2.3 Further, the Company is willing to offer the services
of an out-placement agency which would assist the
worker in finding alternative employment outside
Technicon. This service would cost the Company
#2,070.
2.4. Alternatively the Company was prepared to place the
worker in an Assembly position at Grade IV and would
pay her a lump sum of #1,840 to compensate for
re-grading. Thereafter her salary would increase at
50% of future increases until it coincides with the
104 level on Grade IV.
2.5 The offer was the Company's final position on the
matter. Should the worker not avail of any of the
options presented she would be issued with a Form RP1
giving one month's notice of redundancy to take effect
at close of business on Friday, 8th June, 1990.
This offer was not accepted by the Union and the Company issued
formal notice of redundancy to the worker. A dispute followed but
was resolved by an agreement reached in May, 1990. The Company
withdrew formal redundancy notice as the agreement provided for
the submission by the Union of a study of secretarial requirements
and that, if no settlement could be reached, the matter would be
referred to a Rights Commissioner or some other independent
advisor for investigation and recommendation. The Union study
challenged the requirement for a secretarial redundancy and as no
agreement was reached the matter was referred to a Rights
Commissioner in May, 1990. The Rights Commissioner investigated
the dispute on 13th November,1990 and issued the following
recommendation on 30th November, 1990:-
"RECOMMENDATION
I recommend that the worker accepts the Company offer of an
out placement agency while remaining on the payroll. If this
is successful, to her satisfaction, that she should then
accept the redundancy terms offered. In the event of this
being inconclusive then I recommend that the issue is
re-examined."
(The worker was named in the recommendation).
The Union on 7th January, 1991 appealed the recommendation to the
Labour Court under Section 13(9) of the Industrial Relations Act,
1969. The Court heard the appeal on 29th January, 1991.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The results of the Union's study of secretarial services
show that a total workload of 85 hours is sustainable. The
Rights Commissioner was not in a position to evaluate the
different estimates of workload for secretaries submitted by
both parties.
2. The Company initially offered the worker re-deployment
which was not suitable and is now trying to force her into a
redundancy situation. The Rights Commissioner's
recommendation has proved inconclusive and the Company should
not try to enforce a redundancy situation without meaningful
negotiations with the Union.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. Following a re-organisation in the Company there is a
requirement for the redundancy of one secretary. Since July,
1990 the worker concerned has been absent from work due to
illness and secretarial services to the Company have not
suffered. This confirms the Company's claim that only one
secretarial post is required.
2. The Company has made efforts to relocate the worker. It
has also made her a generous redundancy offer on 8th May,
1990. These are the best terms that the Company can offer to
the worker in the circumstances.
3. A redundancy situation clearly exists within the meaning
of the Redundancy Payments Acts 1967-1984. The Company is
legally entitled, by virtue of these statues, to make the
worker redundant.
DECISION:
5. In considering the circumstances of this case as described
by the parties in their oral and written submissions the Court has
taken account of the effect of the passage of time since the
Rights Commissioner's recommendation.
In all the circumstances the Court takes the view that the issue
should be resolved by the payment to the worker of #13,543 in full
and final settlement of the matter.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
12th March, 1991 Tom McGrath
A.S./M.O'C. _______________
Deputy Chairman