Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD94549 Case Number: AD959 Section / Act: S13(9) Parties: STEEL COMPANY OF IRELAND LIMITED - and - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION |
Appeal by the Company against Rights Commissioner's Recommendation No. CW161/94.
Recommendation:
The Court has fully considered all of the views expressed by the
parties in their oral and written submissions and given the very
specific circumstances applicable in this case upholds the
recommendation of the Rights Commissioner and rejects the appeal
of the Company.
The Court so decides.
Division: Mr McGrath Mr McHenry Mr Rorke
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD94549 APPEAL DECISION NO. AD995
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 13(9), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969
PARTIES:
STEEL COMPANY OF IRELAND LIMITED
(REPRESENTED BY THE IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS CONFEDERATION)
AND
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Appeal by the Company against Rights Commissioner's
Recommendation No. CW161/94.
BACKGROUND:
2. 1. The worker concerned commenced employment with the
Company in June 1990 and worked as an assistant to the
transport manager. She tendered her resignation on the
22nd February, 1994 and left the Company on the 16th
March, 1994. On the 9th March, 1994 the Company
announced a reorganisation and rationalisation plan
which involved a number of redundancies throughout its
plant. In the transport office Management proposed four
redundancies. The Company's voluntary severance terms
included four weeks' pay per year of service plus
statutory entitlements. The Union claimed that the
worker concerned was entitled to the voluntary severance
package. The Company rejected the claim.
2. The dispute was referred to a Rights Commissioner for
investigation and recommendation. On the 28th
September, 1994 the Rights Commissioner issued his
Recommendation as follows:-
"I recommend that the Company offers and the worker
accepts #1,500 in settlement of this dispute."
(The worker was named in the Recommendation).
On the 20th October, 1994 the Company appealed the
Rights Commissioner's Recommendation to the Labour
Court. The Court heard the appeal on the 2nd February,
1995.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The worker resigned prior to the Company's redundancy
announcement. She was neither in a position to be
selected or volunteer for redundancy.
2. The worker was not declared redundant and cannot
therefore be entitled to any form of severance pay.
3. Concession of the worker's claim could lead to
consequential claims from other workers who resigned
without receiving any severance payments.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The worker tendered her notice on the 17th February,
1994. The redundancies were announced on the 9th March,
1994. The worker was listed as redundant and
subsequently left the Company on the 16th March, 1994.
2. The Company argues that because of her resignation the
worker could not benefit from the voluntary redundancy
package, however, management also agreed that her post
was suppressed.
3. The Company benefited from the worker's departure in
that her vacating a position helped the
re-organisational process. The Company also benefited
from the ongoing savings on wage costs.
DECISION:
The Court has fully considered all of the views expressed by the
parties in their oral and written submissions and given the very
specific circumstances applicable in this case upholds the
recommendation of the Rights Commissioner and rejects the appeal
of the Company.
The Court so decides.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
21st February, 1995 Tom McGrath
T.O'D./D.T. _______________
Deputy Chairman