Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD92330 Case Number: LCR13710 Section / Act: S20(1) Parties: SANDVIK IRELAND LIMITED - and - A WORKER |
A dispute concerning a claim by the worker for compensation in excess of statutory redundancy entitlements.
Recommendation:
5. Having considered the submissions made by the parties the
Court recommends that the Company increase its gratuity to #2,000
and that the amount so amended should be accepted by the worker
concerned.
The Court also notes the Company's willingness in view of the
worker's satisfactory service, to re employ the worker in the
event of business recovering to the extent that filling the
vacancy is warranted.
Division: Mr O'Connell Mr McHenry Mr Walsh
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD92330 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR13710
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 20(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969
PARTIES: SANDVIK IRELAND LIMITED
(REPRESENTED BY THE FEDERATION OF IRISH EMPLOYERS)
and
A WORKER
SUBJECT:
1. A dispute concerning a claim by the worker for compensation in
excess of statutory redundancy entitlements.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Company is involved in the sale and distribution of steel
and engineering products. The worker was employed as a clerical
worker with the Company from 28th May, 1986 until her employment
ended on 31st December, 1991.
Due to a serious decline in business in late 1990, it was agreed
that it would be necessary to place two of the staff on a three
day week in the hope that things would improve. As a result, the
worker and one warehouse employee were put on a three day week
from 1st September, 1991. By December, as things had not
improved, the decision was taken to make the worker redundant.
On termination of her employment the worker was offered the
equivalent of one month's salary in addition to her statutory
redundancy entitlement. The worker refused the gratuity on the
grounds that, taking into account her good record with the
Company, it should have been greater. The Company rejected the
claim and the dispute was referred to the Labour Court, by the
worker, under Section 20(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969.
The worker agreed to accept the recommendation of the Court and
the Court investigated the dispute on Wednesday 24th June, 1992.
WORKER'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The worker feels that she has been badly treated by the
Company. She had an excellent working record and facilitated
the Company by going on a three day week. The worker was
never given any indication that her job was in jeopardy. Her
understanding was that after a period of working a three day
week she would be returned to a full working week.
2. The worker has applied for other jobs but with no success.
She feels that in order to have a realistic chance of
re-employment she will have to receive up to date computer
training which will involve a lot of cost. This coupled with
her working record adds to the worker's conviction that she
should receive an enhanced redundancy payment greater than
that offered by the Company. The worker feels that a payment
of 6 weeks' pay per year of service should be made to her by
the Company.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The gratuity being claimed by the worker is excessive.
The Company is a small Company and is not in a financial,
position to make enhanced payments over and above the months
salary offered to the worker. In making this payment the
Company is in keeping with its own policy. In 1985 an ex
gratia payment of one month's salary was made to an employee
in similar circumstances to that of the worker. No precedence
exists which justifies the worker's claim.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. Having considered the submissions made by the parties the
Court recommends that the Company increase its gratuity to #2,000
and that the amount so amended should be accepted by the worker
concerned.
The Court also notes the Company's willingness in view of the
worker's satisfactory service, to re employ the worker in the
event of business recovering to the extent that filling the
vacancy is warranted.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
John O'Connell
________________________
14th July, 1992. Deputy Chairman
A.NiS./J.C.
Note
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to
Ms. Aoibheann Ni Shuilleabhain, Court Secretary.