Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD9254 Case Number: AD92169 Section / Act: S13(9) Parties: J P DOLAN & SONS LIMITED - and - IRISH DISTRIBUTIVE AND ADMINISTRATIVE TRADE UNION |
Appeal by both parties against Rights Commissioner's recommendation No. CW 387/91 concerning redundancy terms for a worker.
Recommendation:
Having considered the submissions from the parties the Court
finds no grounds for altering the Rights Commissioner's
Recommendation which it accordingly upholds.
The Court so decides.
Division: Ms Owens Mr Brennan Mr Rorke
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD9254 APPEAL DECISION NO AD16992
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 13(9) INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969
PARTIES: J P DOLAN & SONS LIMITED
(REPRESENTED BY TIMOTHY JC O'KEEFFE & CO)
and
IRISH DISTRIBUTIVE AND ADMINISTRATIVE TRADE UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Appeal by both parties against Rights Commissioner's
recommendation No. CW 387/91 concerning redundancy terms for a
worker.
BACKGROUND:
2. The worker was employed by the Company as a butcher for
thirty three years. The worker was made redundant in September,
1991 as the owner sold the business on his retirement. The
worker was paid a statutory redundancy lump sum payment of
£2,925.
3. The Union lodged a claim for the payment of a lump sum of
£9,000 (inclusive of statutory redundancy lump sum). The
Company rejected the claim and offered to pay the redundancy
rebate (£1,740) to the worker. This offer was rejected by the
Union. The matter was referred to a Rights Commissioner for
investigation and recommendation. The Rights Commissioner
investigated the dispute on 16th December, 1991 and issued the
following recommendation dated 9th January, 1992:-
"FINDINGS
There is no statutory entitlement to payments in excess of
redundancy. It is common practice when a Company continues
to trade that extra payments are agreed and made to
employees when they leave. This dispute is more akin to a
situation where a Company has ceased to trade. The worker
had an alternative job offer but declined to accept it. On
balance I do not consider that he has established a right
to any substantial increased terms."
and he recommended
"I recommend that Mr. Dolan offers and the worker accepts
the sum of £2,000 when the rebate is received in settlement
of this dispute and in full and final settlement of any
claim regarding his employment".
The worker was referred to by name in the Rights Commissioner's
Recommendation.
4. Both parties appealed the Rights Commissioner's
Recommendation to the Labour Court under Section 13(9) of the
Industrial Relations Act, 1969. The Court heard the appeal in
Athlone on 20th May, 1992.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
5. 1. The new owner is not prepared to accept full
responsibility for the worker's previous service. Hence a
redundancy situation existed.
2. In view of the worker's long service and redundancy
settlements generally the Union's claim is fair and
reasonable.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
6. 1. The Company was a small family run business. There
were liabilities of various kinds to be met from the
proceeds of the sale. In addition Mr. Dolan has to live of
the proceeds. Consequently he is not in a position to pay
any ex-gratia lump sum.
2. The worker was offered employment with the new owner
but turned it down.
DECISION:
Having considered the submissions from the parties the Court
finds no grounds for altering the Rights Commissioner's
Recommendation which it accordingly upholds.
The Court so decides.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Evelyn Owens
12th June, 1992 _______________________
M.D./N.Ni.M. Deputy Chairman