Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD94195 Case Number: LCR14496 Section / Act: S20(1) Parties: INCORPORATED LAW SOCIETY - and - MANDATE |
Claim for enhanced redundancy payment.
Recommendation:
Having considered the submissions from the parties and having
examined the details as to the background of the dispute provided
in the Appendices to the Union's submission the Court has come to
the view that the Society has not acted unreasonably in all the
circumstances.
The Court accordingly does not recommend concession of the Union's
claim.
Division: Ms Owens Mr Brennan Mr Walsh
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD94195 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR14496
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 20(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969
PARTIES:
INCORPORATED LAW SOCIETY
(REPRESENTED BY THE IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS CONFEDERATION)
AND
MANDATE
SUBJECT:
1. Claim for enhanced redundancy payment.
BACKGROUND:
2. The worker concerned commenced her employment with the
Society in October, 1967, as a cleaner. In August, 1991, the
worker was informed by management, that, as she had reached
retirement age her employment would cease with effect from
31st December, 1991. The employment of three other workers
was also terminated at that time.
The Union objected to the Company's actions on the grounds
that contract cleaners would replace the four workers.
The worker concerned ceased her employment on 31st December,
1991. She was paid an ex-gratia lump-sum by the Society.
In January, 1992, the Union referred the matter of the
termination of her employment to the Employment Appeals
Tribunal (E.A.T.). The Tribunal awarded the worker a
redundancy lump-sum based on continuous and reckonable
service from October, 1967, up to 31st December, 1991.
In June, 1992, following the issue of the E.A.T. Decision
the Union sought a meeting with the Society to discuss a
claim for enhanced redundancy payments. The Society rejected
the claim.
The Union referred the matter to the Labour Court under
Section 20(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969, and
agreed to be bound by the Court's recommendation. A Labour
Court hearing took place on 14th June, 1994.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The E.A.T. Decision states; "It was conceded by the
respondent that the appellant's employment was
terminated by reason of redundancy".
2. A clear case of redundancy exists. The worker should be
compensated in accordance with the existing redundancy
formula in the Society of six weeks' pay per year of
service.
3. At no stage was the worker asked to sign the standard
I.B.E.C. settlement document which suggests that the
matter was not resolved by the Decision of the Tribunal.
4. The worker has given 24 years' loyal service to the
Society. She has been a dedicated worker and was
popular and well liked by all the staff.
LAW SOCIETY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The worker concerned was 65 years old on 7th September,
1991. She was past the normal retirement age on the
date of her retirement.
2. At the Tribunal hearing on 1st April, 1992, the Law
Society agreed to have the redundancy claim go through
by consent of both parties and confirmed by the
Decision of the E.A.T. The agreement was made in good
faith by the parties concerned and it was clearly
understood that it was in final settlement of all
matters relating to the worker's employment and its
termination by way of retirement.
3. The worker was paid full statutory entitlements,
notwithstanding the fact that the Society had already
paid her an ex-gratia lump-sum in December, 1991. The
Law Society did not offset, nor seek to offset this
payment against the statutory redundancy payment agreed
in full and final settlement.
4. The employer's representatives met with the union
representative on 28th September, 1992, and confirmed
their position that no further settlement was due to the
worker and that the previous arrangements had clearly
been entered into on the understanding that the payment
from the Society represented full and final settlement
in respect of the issue.
5. The Union's pursuit of this claim is in breach of a
mutual agreement reached in good faith on the occasion
of the E.A.T. hearing. It is contrary to all good
industrial relations procedures. The Union's
persistence in pursuing this claim represents sharp
practice on its behalf.
6. The money was paid to the worker on the understanding
that an agreement had been concluded in relation to all
matters arising out of her retirement from the Society.
The Society requests that the Labour Court recommend
that the employer has acted in good faith in this case
and that the Union's claim should fail.
RECOMMENDATION:
Having considered the submissions from the parties and having
examined the details as to the background of the dispute provided
in the Appendices to the Union's submission the Court has come to
the view that the Society has not acted unreasonably in all the
circumstances.
The Court accordingly does not recommend concession of the Union's
claim.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
6th July, 1994 Evelyn Owens
F.B./M.M. __________________
Deputy Chairperson
Note
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to
Mr. Fran Brennan, Court Secretary.