Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD91516 Case Number: AD9197 Section / Act: S13(9) Parties: ROYAL DUBLIN SOCIETY - and - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION |
Appeal by the Company and the Union against Rights Commissioner's recommendation B.C. 187/91 concerning a worker's application for voluntary redundancy.
Recommendation:
5. The Court having considered the views of the parties put
forward in their oral and written submissions together with the
findings of the Rights Commissioner, takes the view that in equity
taking into account all the circumstances of the case the
recommendation of the Rights Commissioner should be upheld.
Accordingly the Court rejects the appeals of the R.D.S. and the
Union.
The Court so decides.
Division: MrMcGrath Mr Brennan Mr Walsh
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD91516 APPEAL DECISION NO. AD9791
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 13(9), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969
PARTIES: ROYAL DUBLIN SOCIETY
(REPRESENTED BY THE FEDERATION OF IRISH EMPLOYERS)
and
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Appeal by the Company and the Union against Rights
Commissioner's recommendation B.C. 187/91 concerning a worker's
application for voluntary redundancy.
BACKGROUND:
2.l The worker concerned commenced employment with the Royal
Dublin Society in 1982. In November, 1990 the Society implemented
a rationalisation programme and invited applications from the
workforce to avail of a voluntary redundancy package. Details of
the package were circulated to each worker on the 21st December,
1990. The worker concerned submitted her application for the
severance package on the 21st January, 1991. Her application was
due for consideration by the Executive Committee on the 31st
January, 1991. In the meantime she had secured alternative
employment and advised Management that she wished to take up her
new position on the 7th February, 1991. She submitted her
resignation on the 24th January, 1991. The Executive Committee
considered her application for a voluntary redundancy package on
the 31st January, 1991 and rejected it. The Union claimed that
the worker was unfairly treated and referred the issue to a Rights
Commissioner for investigation on the 23rd July, 1991. On the
22nd August, 1991 the Rights Commissioner issued his
recommendation as follows:-
"In the light of the above I recommend that the Royal Dublin
Society pay severance settlement to the worker of £5,000 and
that this be accepted by her in full and final settlement of
all claims on the Society in relation to the termination of
her employment".
(The worker was named in the Rights Commissioner's
recommendation). The Company and the Union appealed the
recommendation to the Labour Court under Section 13(9) of the
Industrial Relations Act, 1969. A Court hearing was held on the
30th October, 1991.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Society sought voluntary redundancies to achieve a
reduction in staff numbers and thereby to reduce costs. The
departure of the worker achieved this reduction in that her
job in the commercial department was filled by transferring a
worker from the agriculture department, while the work of that
employee was spread amongst the remaining workers in the area.
The stated objective of the Society was achieved but it has
treated the worker concerned in a shabby fashion.
2. The Society led staff occupying posts common to a number
of departments to believe that they would be accommodated.
It refused to confirm the maximum number of workers who could
leave although the budget for 1991 suggested a cost reduction
of £200,000 or the equivalent of 13/15 jobs. At the time
there were only nine applications. The Union understands that
in a voluntary situation both sides can keep their options
open (the worker need not apply and the employer need not
accept). However in this instance equity did not prevail. It
was not a question of the worker not being entitled to the
package; it was solely a question of the Society achieving the
specific redundancy at no cost.
3. All the worker's actions were motivated by the Employer's
announcement that there was a staff surplus and that staff
were encouraged to apply for the voluntary package. Her
application was refused because she notified her immediate
supervisor and employer of her prospective new employment.
Neither her immediate supervisor nor the Chief Officer
expressed any particular difficulty with the worker's leaving
the employment on the 6th February, 1991 once the Executive
Committee met and approved her application for voluntary
redundancy. She was advised to submit her application for the
redundancy package on the 22nd January and to follow it with a
further letter on the 24th January indicating her desire to
leave by a given date. The second letter was superfluous and
damaging to the worker, and was used by the Executive
Committee as justification for not accepting her application
for the package. This must be seen as a deliberate attempt by
Management to exploit the knowledge that she had the offer of
another position.
4. Where an employer invites staff to apply for a voluntary
severance package the only justifiable reason for refusing
same (in this case no reason was given) would be the necessity
to retain specific and vital skills, too many applications,
approaching retirement age, or the intention of a worker to
leave prior to the invitation to apply for the voluntary
package.
None of these criteria applied in this case. The Union asks
the Court to recommend that the worker should receive her full
entitlement under the voluntary severance package, i.e.,
£10,000.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The worker concerned resigned from her position as
secretary on the 24th January, 1991. This was seven days
before the Executive Committee had the opportunity to consider
her application for voluntary redundancy. She tendered her
resignation for personal reasons and was fully aware that it
preceded the meeting of the Executive Committee on the 31st
January, 1991 at which her application for voluntary
redundancy would be considered. At no time was the worker
given any assurance that her application for voluntary
redundancy would be accepted by the Executive Committee. In
fact, no member of the Management team would have the
authority to give any such assurances.
2. Her position with the Society has not in fact been made
redundant and she has been directly replaced. The worker was
not the only applicant that the Executive Committee turned
down for voluntary redundancy. Her position with the
organisation was quite secure, and there was no question of a
redundancy being enforced. It cannot be concluded that the
worker's application would have been accepted as a matter of
course because from a practical point of view her position
could not and has not been made redundant.
3. The Society acted quite correctly within the terms of the
offer that it had circulated to all staff members on the 21st
December, 1990. The terms of the offer for voluntary
redundancy were applied consistently and with equity to all
staff members. The employer should not be penalised for doing
so. In essence, a redundancy payment is made to provide some
measure of financial compensation for a worker who loses a job
through redundancy. It was not the intention of the scheme to
pay staff members for their resignation. The Society believes
that the Rights Commissioner's recommendation in this case is
incorrect in principle, and requests the Court to overturn
said recommendation.
DECISION:
5. The Court having considered the views of the parties put
forward in their oral and written submissions together with the
findings of the Rights Commissioner, takes the view that in equity
taking into account all the circumstances of the case the
recommendation of the Rights Commissioner should be upheld.
Accordingly the Court rejects the appeals of the R.D.S. and the
Union.
The Court so decides.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
John O'Connell
__________________
26th November, 1991. Deputy Chairman
T.O'D./J.C.