Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD9599 Case Number: AD9533 Section / Act: S13(9) Parties: CAMPBELL CATERING LTD. (MSS) - and - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION |
Appeal by the Company against Rights Commissioner's Recommendation BC/284/94.
Recommendation:
The Court having considered the written and oral submissions of
the parties agrees with the Rights Commissioner's findings on the
redundancy issue.
The Court recommends that the claimant be paid a sum of #1,250
plus statutory payment in full and final settlement of the claim.
The Rights Commissioner's recommendation should be amended
accordingly.
The Court so decides.
Division: Mr Flood Mr McHenry Mr Rorke
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD9599 APPEAL DECISION NO. AD3395
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 13(9), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969
PARTIES:
CAMPBELL CATERING LTD.
AND
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Appeal by the Company against Rights Commissioner's
Recommendation BC/284/94.
BACKGROUND:
2. The worker was employed in August, 1989 by Campbell Catering
as a relief catering assistant. She was employed at the unit
in Packard Electric. In April, 1994 it was necessary for the
Company to reduce staffing levels. Five workers including
the claimant were let go by the Company. The worker was
offered some temporary work but this was refused as it was
not suitable to her. The Union is seeking redundancy
payments in excess of statutory entitlements for the worker.
The Company state that the worker is only entitled to
statutory entitlements as the worker had refused alternative
work.
The dispute was referred by the Union to a Rights
Commissioner. The Rights Commissioner heard the case on 14th
December, 1994 and recommended that:-
"the worker be regarded as redundant within Campbell
Catering and that compensation be paid to her in line
with the most recent formula applied within the
Company".
(The worker was named in the Rights Commissioner's
Recommendation).
The Company appealed the Rights Commissioner's Recommendation
to the Labour Court on the 18th January, 1995. The Court
heard the appeal on the 10th March, 1995 under Section 13(9)
of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The worker was employed as a catering assistant by
Campbell Catering in August, 1989 and was subsequently
let go by the Company with effect from 18th April, 1994.
The Union has sought to have the worker reinstated to
her former position with the Company. If it is not
possible to have the worker reinstated then her position
should be declared redundant by the Company and a
redundancy package offered to the worker.
2. The worker was employed for the last five years on a
full time basis and not as a relief worker as claimed by
the Company. The redundancy terms being sought by the
Union is 5 weeks pay for each year of service in
addition to the worker's statutory entitlements under
the Redundancy Payment Act.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The worker was employed as a general assistant at our
unit in Packard Electric. In April, 1994 it was
necessary to introduce changes in operations at Packard
Electric. This resulted in the Company having to lay
off the particular worker. The worker was offered some
temporary work elsewhere but this was refused.
2. Campbell Catering operate what is known as a "Cost Plus
Contract", whereby the Company is paid a management fee
for managing the catering services in a client's
premises. In this case the client (Packard Electric)
requested the Company to reduce its staffing levels
because it was having trading difficulties. As a result
the Company had to lay off workers. The Company
indicated to the Union that it was unable to pay any
compensation to the worker other than statutory
entitlements because its 'client (Packard Electric)
refused' any reinbursement to it above the statutory
limits.
DECISION:
The Court having considered the written and oral submissions of
the parties agrees with the Rights Commissioner's findings on the
redundancy issue.
The Court recommends that the claimant be paid a sum of #1,250
plus statutory payment in full and final settlement of the claim.
The Rights Commissioner's recommendation should be amended
accordingly.
The Court so decides.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
10th April, 1995 Finbarr Flood
L.W./D.T. _______________
Deputy Chairman