Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD94645 Case Number: LCR14743 Section / Act: S26(1) Parties: JAMES MCMAHON LIMITED - and - BUILDING AND ALLIED TRADES UNION |
Dispute concerning the alleged unfair dismissal of a worker.
Recommendation:
5. Having considered the written and oral submissions made by
both parties, the Court is of the view that the basis of selection
for redundancy was unfair.
Taking into account all of the circumstances of this case the
Court does not recommend reinstatement.
Having taken into account the arguments made by both sides, the
Court believes the best way of resolving this issue is for the
Company to accept the proposal emanating from the conciliation
conference but to make the payment of the #9,000 a net payment to
the claimant in full and final settlement of the case.
The Court so recommends.
Division: Mr Flood Mr Keogh Mr Rorke
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD94645 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR14743
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 26(1) INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990
PARTIES: JAMES MCMAHON LIMITED
(Represented by Irish Business and Economic Confederation)
and
BUILDING AND ALLIED TRADES UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Dispute concerning the alleged unfair dismissal of a worker.
BACKGROUND:
2. 1. Treaty Handles is a long established Company within the
James McMahon Group. The worker was employed as a mill
foreman in the manufacture of agricultural and tool handles.
The Company employs 25 workers.
2. The worker commenced employment with the Company on 1st
June, 1964. On 5th July, 1994, the worker was summoned to
the Company Director's office. A heated discussion took
place concerning operational difficulties relating to the
business (details supplied).
3. On 6th July, 1994, the worker's position was made
redundant and the worker was paid a redundancy package which
was in accord with the terms of Labour Court Recommendation
No. LCR13664. The worker's payment was also inclusive of
notice, bonus, holidays and expenses.
4. Following the redundancy, the Union contacted the
Company claiming that the worker was unfairly dismissed and
sought his reinstatement to the position which he formerly
held. The Company rejected the Union's claim of unfair
dismissal and it was referred to the Labour Relations
Commission. The first conciliation conference was postponed
because of unofficial industrial action at the Company.
Conciliation conferences were eventually held on 12th October
and 14th December, 1994.
5. The parties were unable to resolve the dispute by
conciliation. On 27th February, 1995, the dispute was
referred to the Labour Court under the terms of Section 26(1)
of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. The Court
investigated the dispute on 15th March, 1995 in Limerick.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The redundancy situation outlined by the Company is not
genuine. The worker was dismissed as a result of an argument
which he had with a Director of the Company over work
practices. If a genuine redundancy situation existed, the
Company would have consulted with the Union prior to the
redundancy.
2. Prior to the argument with the Director, neither the
worker nor the Union were aware of any threat to the worker's
job. Prior to his dismissal, the worker had received no
warnings about his performance. The worker had not breached
Company rules or regulations.
3. The worker was dismissed by the Company without
following any recognised procedures. The worker had 30
years' service with an unblemished record. The Union
believes that the worker will be replaced. The Union claims
that the worker should be restored to his former position
with an appropriate arrangement put in place to refund the
monies owed.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The worker left the Company in a genuine redundancy
situation whereby the Company decided "to carry on the
business with a fewer number of employees whether by
requiring the work for which the employee has been employed
(or had been doing before his dismissal) to be done by other
employees or otherwise". The Company is trading in a very
difficult marketplace with tight margins which have been
further eroded by a substantial increase in hard wood costs.
While the worker was employed, the Company was top-heavy in
management personnel which the volume of throughput at the
plant could not sustain.
2. The worker signed a waiver form accepting the terms of
the redundancy package. He also advised the Company that he
would be consulting with the Union before finalising the
package on offer. The Company was very surprised when the
worker changed his mind some weeks later. There is no longer
a requirement for a mill foreman at the Company. The worker
has not been replaced and the Company does not have suitable
alternative employment for him.
3. The worker did not have to accept the redundancy terms
on offer in early July. He could have chosen to have his
Union formally represent his interests at that stage. The
Company concluded its agreement with the worker in good faith
and is seriously concerned about possible knock-on effects of
increasing the terms of the worker's redundancy package.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. Having considered the written and oral submissions made by
both parties, the Court is of the view that the basis of selection
for redundancy was unfair.
Taking into account all of the circumstances of this case the
Court does not recommend reinstatement.
Having taken into account the arguments made by both sides, the
Court believes the best way of resolving this issue is for the
Company to accept the proposal emanating from the conciliation
conference but to make the payment of the #9,000 a net payment to
the claimant in full and final settlement of the case.
The Court so recommends.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
2nd May, 1995 Finbarr Flood
J.F./U.S. -----------------
Deputy Chairman
NOTE:
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to
Mr Jerome Forde, Court Secretary.