Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD92678 Case Number: AD92234 Section / Act: S13(9) Parties: A.S. RICHARDSON LIMITED - and - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TRADE UNION |
Appeal by the Company against Rights Commissioner Recommendation (CW.372/92) concerning the amount of redundancy to be paid to a worker.
Recommendation:
The Court has given careful consideration to all the points made
by the parties to this appeal. The Court has also noted the
Company's present position and the background which gave rise to
the redundancy.
The Court is satisfied in the circumstances the Rights
Commissioner is correct in his view that the employee is entitled
to more than his statutory entitlement.
The Court considers that, without precedent, in addition to
statutory entitlement, a sum of #15,000 to be equitable in the
circumstances in full and final settlement of the claim.
The Court accordingly upholds the appeal to the extent that it
alters the amount of compensation.
The Court so decides.
Division: Ms Owens Mr Keogh Mr Walsh
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD92678 APPEAL DECISION NO. AD23492
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 13(9) INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969
PARTIES: A.S. RICHARDSON LIMITED
(REPRESENTED BY THE FEDERATION OF IRISH EMPLOYERS)
AND
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TRADE UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Appeal by the Company against Rights Commissioner
Recommendation (CW.372/92) concerning the amount of redundancy to
be paid to a worker.
BACKGROUND:
2. 1. The worker commenced employment with the Company in
September, 1971 and rose from the position of general worker
to Head Foreman in its sawmill. During 1992, the Company
undertook a review of its operations and as a consequence of
this and the appointment of a new Operations' Manager in
September, 1991, the Company declared the worker's position
redundant. The Company offered the worker an alternative
position as a Materials' co-ordinator with a reduced salary.
The worker rejected this offer and the Union on his behalf
sought an adequate redundancy settlement.
2. The matter of the proposed redundancy was referred to
the Labour Relations Commission on the 25th August, 1992. A
Rights Commissioner investigated the dispute on the 6th
October, 1992 and issued a recommendation on the 14th
October, 1992:-
"I recommend that the Company offers and the worker
accepts an individual extra statutory redundancy payment
(without precedent) of three (3) weeks pay per year of
service."
3. The Rights Commissioner's recommendation was rejected by the
Company and the worker was made redundant on the 16th
October, 1992. The Company appealed the recommendation to
the Labour Court on the 30th October, 1992. The Court heard
the appeal on the 25th November, 1992 in Leitrim.
WORKER'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The worker has given 22 years good service to the
Company and his ability has never been questioned.
2. The Company is capable of paying above the statutory
redundancy entitlement.
3. The removal of the worker from the payroll would result
in a substantial saving for the Company.
4. An Operations' Manager was added to the staff at
considerable cost.
5. The worker's future employment prospects are poor.
6. The worker has a young family and financial commitments.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Company recorded substantial losses in 1991 and the
first three quarters of 1992.
2. The worker's post deteriorated with many of his previous
tasks being re-assigned or subsumed by senior management.
3. A serious effort was made to accommodate the worker by
offering him the position of Materials' Co-Ordinator.
4. Concession of an excessive ex-gratia amount would put
other jobs at risk.
DECISION:
The Court has given careful consideration to all the points made
by the parties to this appeal. The Court has also noted the
Company's present position and the background which gave rise to
the redundancy.
The Court is satisfied in the circumstances the Rights
Commissioner is correct in his view that the employee is entitled
to more than his statutory entitlement.
The Court considers that, without precedent, in addition to
statutory entitlement, a sum of #15,000 to be equitable in the
circumstances in full and final settlement of the claim.
The Court accordingly upholds the appeal to the extent that it
alters the amount of compensation.
The Court so decides.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
14th December, 1992 Evelyn Owens
P.O.C./M.H. ______________________________________
Deputy Chairman.