Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD92165 Case Number: LCR13871 Section / Act: S20(1) Parties: MAGEE AND COMPANY LIMITED - and - A WORKER;P. BRADY & COMPANY, SOLICITORS |
A dispute concerning the alleged unfair treatment of a worker.
Recommendation:
5. Having considered the sequence of events which led to the
cessation of the claimant's employment, the Court does not
consider that they support her contention that she received unfair
or unequal treatment. Accordingly, the Court does not find in
favour of the claimant.
However, having regard to the good employer/employee relationship
and tradition in the Company, the long service of the claimant and
her personal situation at the time she resigned, the Court
suggests that the Company reconsider the possibility of some
ex-gratia concession to the claimant because of the combination of
circumstances at the time.
Division: Mr Heffernan Mr Brennan Mr Walsh
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD92165 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR13871
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 20(1) INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969
PARTIES: MAGEE AND COMPANY LIMITED
(Represented by the Federation of Irish Employers)
and
A WORKER
(Represented by P. Brady & Company, Solicitors)
SUBJECT:
1. A dispute concerning the alleged unfair treatment of a worker.
BACKGROUND:
2. 1. The Company is located in Donegal town where they
employ 320 people. The Company is involved in the design,
manufacture and distribution of quality men's suits and
outwear and has been in existence since 1866.
2. The worker was employed in the Company as a spare
machinist in the clothing division and commenced employment on
10th February, 1969. The worker commenced maternity leave on
the 12th August, 1991 and was due to return to the Company on
the 15th November, 1991.
3. On the 14th October, 1991, the Company announced a
requirement to reduce staff numbers, on a voluntary redundancy
basis, in its clothing factory due to a downturn in sales.
Those interested were requested to apply by the 21st October,
1991. The worker applied on the 16th October, 1991 for
voluntary redundancy. On the 18th November, 1991, the Company
wrote to the worker advising her that her application had been
turned down.
4. On the 15th November, the worker advised the Company
that she was resigning and the Company accepted this. The
solicitor for the worker, wrote to the Company on the 24th
January, 1992 stating that their client was aggrieved by the
unfair selection regarding the voluntary redundancy offer. On
the 30th January, 1992 the worker referred the matter to the
Rights Commissioner service but the Company objected to a
Rights Commissioner hearing the matter by letter dated 12th
February, 1992. The issue was referred to the Labour Court on
the 3rd March, 1992 and the Court investigated the matter on
the 10th November, 1992 in Donegal. The worker agreed to be
bound by the decision of the Court.
WORKER'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Company failed to bring the notice of voluntary
redundancy to the attention of the worker who was on maternity
leave.
2. The Company refused the worker redundancy stating that
her skills were still required. The Company confirmed in
writing to the Department of Social Welfare two weeks later,
that they did not have suitable employment available for her.
3. The Company suspected that the worker would not return
to work after her maternity leave as she had casually
mentioned this possibility before going on leave.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Company received 9 applications for voluntary
redundancy from the worker's section. Six (6) applications,
including the worker's, were refused.
2. There are 10 spare machinists in the Company and none
were made redundant. The Company required the range of skills
which the worker possessed
3. The voluntary nature of the redundancy programme was
emphasised with the Company reserving the right to accept or
reject any particular application.
4. The worker voluntarily tendered her resignation on the
15th November, 1991.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. Having considered the sequence of events which led to the
cessation of the claimant's employment, the Court does not
consider that they support her contention that she received unfair
or unequal treatment. Accordingly, the Court does not find in
favour of the claimant.
However, having regard to the good employer/employee relationship
and tradition in the Company, the long service of the claimant and
her personal situation at the time she resigned, the Court
suggests that the Company reconsider the possibility of some
ex-gratia concession to the claimant because of the combination of
circumstances at the time.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Heffernan
25th November, 1992 ----------------
P O'C/U.S. Chairman
NOTE:
ENQUIRIES CONCERNING THIS RECOMMENDATION SHOULD BE ADDRESSED
TO MR PAUL O'CONNOR, COURT SECRETARY.