Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD92450 Case Number: AD92211 Section / Act: S13(9) Parties: CAMAC CASK - and - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION |
Appeal against Rights Commissioner's recommendation No. B.C. 182/92 concerning redundancy payment for a worker.
Recommendation:
5. The Court has considered the submissions made by the parties
and takes the view that the Rights Commissioner's Recommendation
was correct in the circumstances of the case, and therefore should
stand.
The Court so decides.
The Court further recommends that the offer made by the Company to
the claimant should be accepted in full settlement of his claim.
Division: Mr O'Connell Mr McHenry Mr Rorke
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD92450 APPEAL DECISION NO. AD21192
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 13(9), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969
PARTIES: CAMAC CASK
(REPRESENTED BY THE FEDERATION OF IRISH EMPLOYERS)
and
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Appeal against Rights Commissioner's recommendation No. B.C.
182/92 concerning redundancy payment for a worker.
BACKGROUND:
2. 1. The Company was established 28 years ago as a subsidiary
of the Guinness Group to maintain and repair aluminium kegs
for use by the brewery. It employs 28 workers.
2. In January, 1992, the Company advised the workforce of
its decision to reduce the number of employees to 8 workers
arising from its decision to phase out aluminium keg repairs
in favour of the stainless steel kegs. Negotiations took
place between the Company and the group of unions. In May an
agreement reached provided for enhanced redundancy terms and a
feasibility study for the establishment of a Co-op.
3. The Union made a further claim on the Company on behalf of
2 workers who had been excluded from the redundancy terms on
the grounds of age. The workers had been excluded on the
grounds that they would have had the opportunity to obtain
their full pension at age 65. One worker was due to retire at
age 65 in June, 1992. The other, who was on an income
continuance plan following an alleged accident at work in
April, 1989, will receive his pension in April, 1993.
4. The Company offered to settle the claim by paying the
workers a sum of #2,000 plus their statutory redundancy
entitlements. The first worker accepted the offer and the
second rejected it. The second worker's claim was referred to
the Rights Commissioner's service and an investigation was
held on 26th June, 1992. The following recommendation issued
on 13th July, 1992.
*"RECOMMENDATION
In the light of the above and having given full and
careful consideration to the points made by both parties
I have come to the conclusion that the Company is not
acting unfairly in its approach to the worker.
Therefore I must hold that the claim on behalf of the
worker must fail and I recommend accordingly".
(The worker was named in the Recommendation).
5. The Recommendation was appealed to the Labour Court by the
Union by letter dated 22nd July, 1992. The Labour Court heard
the appeal on 2nd October, 1992 (the earliest date suitable to
both parties).
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The worker commenced his employment with the Company in
February, 1964 and has been on sick leave since April, 1989
(details supplied). The worker's retirement date will be 25th
April, 1993. The Union is seeking that the worker be given
the same redundancy terms as those which were offered to the
rest of the workforce. The worker is entitled to the same
consideration as was granted to other workers over 60. The
age of a worker was never a disqualification in previous
settlements (details supplied).
2. The Rights Commissioner referred to the fact that the
worker was not in the initial list of workers to be made
redundant. The Union believes that the Company's decision to
seek volunteers from the entire workforce changed the position
fundamentally. The worker then had a right to opt for
redundancy. The Company's refusal to consider him amounts to
discrimination. The precedent of workers over 60 receiving
redundancy is long established within the Company (details
supplied).
3. Concession of the claim will not lead to repercussive
claims within the Company or within the Group as a whole. The
redundancy agreement arose from a rationalisation of the
Group's activities and marketplace changes. The Group is cash
rich, having high levels of earnings and a reduced overall
workforce. In these circumstances the maximum redundancy
terms are sought for the worker.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Company's manpower requirement was reduced from 28 to
8 workers. This was to be achieved by making 18 workers
redundant (average age 53) and by retaining 2 workers until
their retirement date on the principle that the terms would
only be available to those who left or had to leave without
having the opportunity to obtain a full pension entitlement at
age 65. The Company is not seeking the worker's redundancy
and he is not at the loss of any money that he might
reasonably expect to get.
2. Only a limited amount of money was available for
redundancy. The distribution of the funds was agreed with the
Unions. If the claim is to be conceded, money will have to be
taken from that which has already been paid to others. The
Company has met all its obligations to the worker in full.
Its offer to the worker of statutory entitlements plus a
goodwill payment of #2,000 is generous in the circumstances.
DECISION:
5. The Court has considered the submissions made by the parties
and takes the view that the Rights Commissioner's Recommendation
was correct in the circumstances of the case, and therefore should
stand.
The Court so decides.
The Court further recommends that the offer made by the Company to
the claimant should be accepted in full settlement of his claim.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
John O'Connell
_____________________
14th October, 1992. Deputy Chairman
J.F./J.C.