Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD92279 Case Number: AD92176 Section / Act: S13(9) Parties: CELMAC LIMITED - and - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION |
An appeal against Rights Commissioner's Recommendation No. ST98/92 regarding a claim for an increased severance payment for a worker.
Recommendation:
5. The Court has considered the submissions made by the parties
and having regard to the particular circumstances in the
claimant's case is of the opinion that the Rights Commissioner's
recommendation should stand.
The Court so decides.
Division: Mr O'Connell Mr Keogh Ms Ni Mhurchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD92279 APPEAL DECISION NO. AD17692
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 13(9), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969
PARTIES: CELMAC LIMITED
(REPRESENTED BY THE FEDERATION OF IRISH EMPLOYERS)
and
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
SUBJECT:
1. An appeal against Rights Commissioner's Recommendation No.
ST98/92 regarding a claim for an increased severance payment for a
worker.
BACKGROUND:
2. 1. The Company manufactures compression moulded toilet seats.
The Company presently employs 55 workers. In the last year,
30 workers have been made redundant by the Company. The
redundancies were effected as follows:-
(i) September, 1991
- sixteen shift workers, 8 general operatives and 1
maintenance man (volunteers).
- 3 weeks' pay per year of service inclusive of
statutory entitlements plus minimum notice (unless
worked) or a minimum payment of #610 per year of
service.
(ii) October, 1991
- 3 training instructors (compulsory)
- 3 weeks' pay at #350 per week per year of service
plus #100 inclusive of statutory entitlements and
minimum notice (unless worked).
2. In February, 1992, 2 compulsory redundancies were sought
including that of the worker involved in this case. The
financial arrangements for the worker were to be as at (i)
above.
3. The worker sought to have the financial terms granted to
the training instructors applied to him. The Company rejected
the claim and it was referred to the Rights Commissioners'
service. A Rights Commissioner's investigation was held on
4th March, 1992 and the recommendation No. ST98/92 as set out
below was issued on 25th March, 1992.
"I recommend that the claimant receives an additional
#2,000 in full and final settlement of all his claims
arising from his 23 years service with the Company and
its termination by reason of forced redundancy".
4. The recommendation was appealed by the Company by letter
dated 5th May, 1992 under Section 13(9) of the Industrial
Relations Act, 1969. A Labour Court hearing took place on
11th June, 1992.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. In November, 1991, the worker sought redundancy under the
terms agreed with the Union for the operative grades.
Although not selected for redundancy, the Company facilitated
the worker's request and a redundancy notice was issued. On
17th December, 1991, the worker advised the Company of changed
financial circumstances and requested to continue working.
Again the Company facilitated the worker on the basis of an
expected recovery in the U.K. marketplace. This recovery did
not occur and the worker's compulsory redundancy was sought.
The original redundancy package was acceptable to the worker
and it would be ironic if the Company's efforts to facilitate
the worker in November, 1991 should result in being penalised
(#2,000) as a result. The Rights Commissioner rightly
recognised that the Company gave every assistance to the
worker.
2. The Company agreed a redundancy package for the 3 training
instructors in October, 1991. This package was clearly
understood by both parties to be only available to the 3
instructors involved. It was never intended that the terms of
the package should cover any other workers. The worker has
received 4.3 times his statutory entitlements from a
redundancy package identical to that he himself sought in
November, 1991.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. When the worker was made redundant, the Union immediately
made a claim for #25,000 which took account of the worker's
financial liabilities. As no progress could be made on the
claim, the Union was forced to claim the same terms as those
paid to training instructors. This was a claim for redundancy
payment equal to the terms given to his peer group. As a
chargehand, this would recognise the worker's staff status and
his clearly established relationship with the training
instructors. By offering the worker terms less favourable
than those applying to his peer group, the Company has
discriminated against the worker.
2. The Union is satisfied that had the worker been nominated
for redundancy in October, 1991, as a supervisor, he would
have been formally included in the redundancy package agreed
for the training instructors. The cost of including the
worker would not affect the viability of the Company which
continues to operate. The Union feels that the Rights
Commissioner's recommendation is generous in its recognition
of the Company's position and does not give equal treatment to
the worker. Nonetheless, the worker is prepared to accept the
recommendation in the spirit in which it was issued.
DECISION:
5. The Court has considered the submissions made by the parties
and having regard to the particular circumstances in the
claimant's case is of the opinion that the Rights Commissioner's
recommendation should stand.
The Court so decides.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
John O'Connell
______________________
29th June, 1992. Deputy Chairman
J.F./J.C.