Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD94702 Case Number: AD9541 Section / Act: S13(9) Parties: CAMPBELL CATERING LIMITED - and - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION |
Appeal against Rights Commissioner's Recommendation No BC242/94 concerning a claim for enhanced redundancy payments.
Recommendation:
The Court having considered all of the views of the parties as
expressed in their oral and written submissions considers the
claimant should be paid an enhanced severance payment of 2 weeks
per year of service.
The Rights Commissioner's Recommendation should be amended
accordingly.
The Court so decides.
Division: Mr McGrath Mr Pierce Ms Ni Mhurchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD94702 APPEAL DECISION NO. AD4195
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 13(9), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969
PARTIES:
CAMPBELL CATERING LIMITED
(REPRESENTED BY MANAGEMENT SUPPORT SERVICES)
AND
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Appeal against Rights Commissioner's Recommendation No
BC242/94 concerning a claim for enhanced redundancy payments.
BACKGROUND:
2. The worker concerned commenced employment with the Company as
a catering assistant on 3rd September, 1988. She was located
at the Company's unit at Packard Electric, Tallaght. On 16th
November, 1989, she was appointed to the position of
assistant cook operating on the evening shift and in April,
1989, her employment was made permanent.
In April, 1994, the worker was informed that she was being
transferred to the mid-day shift as the position of assistant
cook was no longer required on the evening shift. Due to the
worker's family commitments the hours involved in the mid-day
shift were unsuitable to her. The worker left the employment
on 15th April, 1994. She was paid statutory redundancy
entitlements. The worker claims that she left the employment
on the understanding that the Company would negotiate with
the Union in relation to enhanced redundancy payments. The
Union on behalf of the worker submitted a claim for 5 weeks'
pay per year of service plus statutory entitlements. 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:-
"Findings
Having investigated the matter and having given full and
careful consideration to the points made by both parties I
have come to the following conclusions:
1. I note that the worker had quite genuine reasons for
being unable to take up the offer of the mid-day
shift.
2. I also note that the change from the late shift to the
mid-day shift was really a change imposed upon the
employer in the context of the requirements of the
client Company.
3. I also note that a circumstance of genuine redundancy
did not exist within Campbell Catering and this can be
established by reference to the fact that on the
worker leaving the employment her position was
filled.
RECOMMENDATION
In the light of the above I must hold that in all the
circumstances the employer did not act unfairly in its
dealings with the worker. I therefore must uphold the
actions of the employer and recommend that the claim must
fail."
The worker was named in the Recommendation.
The Rights Commissioner's Recommendation was appealed by the
Union to the Labour Court on 28th November, 1994 under
Section 13(9) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969. A
Labour Court hearing took place on 23rd January, 1995.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The worker reached an agreement with the Company which
she signed on 19th April, 1994. She accepted statutory
redundancy entitlements on the understanding that the
Company and the Union would negotiate an enhanced
redundancy package as per the agreement.
2. The circumstances surrounding the redundancy were
contributory factors in the worker being admitted to
hospital on 15th April, 1994.
3. In October, 1994, three workers employed by the Company
received redundancy payments of two weeks' pay per year
of service plus statutory entitlements.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The changes, introduced in April, 1994, were made to
accommodate the clients decision to reduce its
requirements. In the circumstances, the Company's offer
to transfer the worker concerned to the mid-day shift
was reasonable.
2. The Company's right to transfer staff from one shift to
another is not disputed and this is understood and
accepted by all staff.
3. The worker's claim cannot be justified. She refused to
transfer to another shift even thought other members of
staff had been moved in the past.
4. On 15th April, 1994, the worker submitted a letter
indicating that she would be seeking additional
redundancy payments. The Company noted her position and
made it quite clear that there was no possibility of
paying more than statutory entitlements.
DECISION:
The Court having considered all of the views of the parties as
expressed in their oral and written submissions considers the
claimant should be paid an enhanced severance payment of 2 weeks
per year of service.
The Rights Commissioner's Recommendation should be amended
accordingly.
The Court so decides.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
11th May, 1995 Tom McGrath
F.B./D.T. _______________
Deputy Chairman