Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD93481 Case Number: AD9386 Section / Act: S13(9) Parties: FRAWLEY'S - and - IRISH DISTRIBUTIVE AND ADMINISTRATIVE TRADE UNION |
Appeal by the Union against Rights Commissioner's recommendation No. C.W. 207/93.
Recommendation:
5. Having considered the submissions from the parties the Court
is satisfied that the Rights Commissioner's Recommendation is fair
in the circumstances and should be upheld.
The Court accordingly rejects the appeal and so decides.
Division: Ms Owens Mr Keogh Ms Ni Mhurchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD93481 APPEAL DECISION NO. AD8693
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 13(9), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969
PARTIES: FRAWLEY'S
(REPRESENTED BY THE IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS CONFEDERATION)
and
IRISH DISTRIBUTIVE AND ADMINISTRATIVE TRADE UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Appeal by the Union against Rights Commissioner's
recommendation No. C.W. 207/93.
BACKGROUND:
2. The worker concerned had been employed by the Company since
1961. In 1992 he suffered a heart attack and was out of work
through illness for a number of months. During this time the
worker had a number of meetings with Management. Although he
submitted a certificate of fitness to return to work on the 7th
September, 1992 he agreed to accept a redundancy package and left
the Company on the 25th September, 1992. The Union claimed that
the worker received a less advantageous settlement than other
former employees. Management rejected the claim. The issue was
referred to a Rights Commissioner for investigation and
recommendation. On the 30th July, 1993 the Rights Commissioner
issued his recommendation as follows:
"I recommend that the Union and the worker accept that the
agreed settlement was fair and reasonable".
(The worker was named in the Rights Commissioner's
Recommendation).
On the 13th August, 1993, the Union appealed the recommendation to
the Labour Court under Section 13(9) of the Industrial Relations
Act, 1969. The Court heard the appeal on the 4th October, 1993.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. During his discussions with Management the worker
concerned was on a course of medication and not sufficiently
fit to negotiate on such an important issue.
2. Another worker who had less service and a lower rate of
pay received a slightly higher pension lump sum than the
worker concerned. The Union is seeking an improved payment on
behalf of the worker.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The worker concerned initiated and freely entered into the
agreement with Management regarding the termination of his
employment. At no time did the Company try to persuade him to
leave the employment.
2. The settlement terms, which included a statutory
redundancy lump sum, company lump sum, and pension entitlement
were very generous. The Company's only obligation was to pay
the worker a pension lump sum.
3. The Company did not extend more favourable terms to
ex-employees. The former employee mentioned by the Union
received only a pension lump sum.
4. The Company acted in a fair and reasonable manner in its
treatment of the worker and acceded to each of his financial
demands.
DECISION:
5. Having considered the submissions from the parties the Court
is satisfied that the Rights Commissioner's Recommendation is fair
in the circumstances and should be upheld.
The Court accordingly rejects the appeal and so decides.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Evelyn Owens
____________________
14th October, 1993. Deputy Chairman.
T.O'D./J.C.