Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD94662 Case Number: AD954 Section / Act: S13(9) Parties: IRISH BISCUITS LIMITED - and - TECHNICAL ENGINEERING AND ELECTRICAL UNION |
Appeal by the Union against Rights Commissioner's Recommendation No. DC94/94 concerning retrospective claim for redundancy payments.
Recommendation:
The Court having considered all of the issues raised by the
parties in their oral and written submission finds that no grounds
have been adduced to warrant amendment of the recommendation of
the Rights Commissioner.
The Court accordingly upholds the Rights Commissioner's
recommendation and rejects the appeal of the claimant.
The Court so decides.
Division: Mr McGrath Mr McHenry Mr Walsh
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD94662 APPEAL DECISION NO. AD495
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 13(9), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969
PARTIES:
IRISH BISCUITS LIMITED
AND
TECHNICAL ENGINEERING AND ELECTRICAL UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Appeal by the Union against Rights Commissioner's
Recommendation No. DC94/94 concerning retrospective claim for
redundancy payments.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Company is involved in the manufacture and sale of
biscuit products under the Jacobs and Bolands brands. It
employs approximately 700 workers.
The worker concerned in the dispute commenced employment as a
maintenance electrician with Bolands, Deansgrange on 1st
March, 1961 and transferred to the Tallaght plant in 1972.
He left the employment on 14th August, 1979. Prior to March,
1961 he was employed for approximately 18 months on the
construction of an extension to Boland's premises.
The worker claims that he left the employment on the
understanding that if his position was not replaced he would
benefit from the terms of the 1978/1979 rationalisation plan.
The Company rejected the claim. The matter was referred to a
Rights Commissioner for investigation and recommendation.
The Rights Commissioner's findings and recommendation are as
follows:-
"There is no prima facie evidence whatsoever to
substantiate the worker's claim and as I am satisfied
that the exchanges he had with Mr. O'Connor on the issue
back in 1979, did not represent any firm commitment on
the part of the Company, I must therefore recommend that
his claim for a retrospective redundancy payment, fails.
I am also of the opinion, however, that there is a
question mark over the claimant's reckonable service for
pension purposes, and I therefore further recommend that
the Company give him the benefit of doubt on this
singular element, and make the necessary arrangements to
increase his reckonable service for pension purposes
from 18 to 20 years."
The worker was named in the recommendation.
The Rights Commissioner's recommendation was appealed by the
Union to the Labour Court on 9th November, 1994 under Section
13(9) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969. A Labour Court
hearing took place on 12th January, 1995.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. In March 1977 the following Company proposals were
presented to the Craft Unions:-
(a) The Company considers it reasonable to expect to
reduce its maintenance cost by virtue of its
investment in the Tallaght factory and plant;
(b) the future work load will not require the same
number of tradesmen as was needed in the Bishop
Street factory and during the move;
(c) a reduction in the number involved, will be
achieved by natural wastage and severance terms on
a voluntary basis;
(d) details of final requirements and severance terms
are attached;
(e) the Company is willing to make a productivity
payment in return for increases in productivity
resulting from the reduction in numbers.
2. In the period 1978/1979 the Company was anxious to
reduce manning levels in the maintenance department and
was encouraging personnel to consider leaving the
employment and avail of the severance package. The
position of the worker concerned was not replaced and in
the circumstances he should have received the terms of
the severance package as per the agreement with
management when he left the employment in August, 1979.
3. Several other former maintenance employees of the
Company who left the employment in 1978 have stated that
they left the employment in circumstances similar to the
worker concerned. They were assured that if their
positions were not replaced they would benefit from the
severance package. Management reneged on the assurance
given.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The worker concerned resigned from the Company to take
up other employment. The issue of redundancy did not
arise.
2. The worker was not replaced immediately, instead a
manning level of 10 electricians was maintained through
overtime working pending the Company establishing its
requirements for electricians.
3. In July, 1982, following lengthy discussions the Company
confirmed that a complement of 10 electricians was the
appropriate number and proposed the employment of 2
electricians. The proposal was rejected and a modified
version accepting a nominal complement of 10 whilst
leaving the overtime arrangement in place was agreed.
4. The worker's claim cannot be justified. The Company is
satisfied that no commitment was made to the worker and
that a genuine redundancy situation never existed. His
decision to leave the Company was voluntary.
DECISION:
The Court having considered all of the issues raised by the
parties in their oral and written submission finds that no grounds
have been adduced to warrant amendment of the recommendation of
the Rights Commissioner.
The Court accordingly upholds the Rights Commissioner's
recommendation and rejects the appeal of the claimant.
The Court so decides.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
10th February, 1995 Tom McGrath
F.B./D.T. _______________
Deputy Chairman