Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD95703 Case Number: LCR15139 Section / Act: S26(1) Parties: REHAB GROUP (Represented by THE IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION) - and - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION |
Compensation for loss of earnings.
Recommendation:
The Court has considered all of the views expressed by the parties
in their oral and written submissions, and has noted the Union's
contention that the circumstances in this case are exceptional.
In the light of the above, the Court recommends that, in this
case, the employee be paid a lump sum of £4,500 in full and final
settlement of his claim, which amount shall not be used as a
precedent in any future claim.
Given the nature of the organisation and the changes likely to
take place from time to time, the Court considers that the parties
should further discuss arrangements to apply where such cases
arise in the future.
Division: Mr McGrath Mr Keogh Mr Walsh
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD95703 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR15139
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990
PARTIES:
REHAB GROUP
(REPRESENTED BY THE IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION)
AND
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Compensation for loss of earnings.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Group is an independent voluntary organisation which
currently employs over 1100 people. It has recently been
restructured into four separate divisions, including the
establishment of Rehabcare in Ballinamore, Co. Leitrim, which
has resulted in a number of redundancies in the Training
Centre.
The claim is on behalf of a Unit Supervisor in Upholstery who
accepted alternative employment as a Programmes Facilitator
at a lower salary in preference to redundancy. His loss of
earnings amounts to £4,663 per annum and the Union claims
compensation on his behalf of 2 years loss of earnings,
amounting to £9,326. The Group has offered 3 times the
weekly loss per year of service, which it claims is a long
established formula for both redundancies and loss of
earnings. The compensation would amount to £2,690.
A conciliation conference was held under the auspices of the
Labour Relations Commission on 10th November, 1995 at which
agreement was not reached. The dispute was referred to the
Labour Court on 13th December, 1995 in accordance with
Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A
Labour Court hearing took place on 29th January, 1996, the
earliest date suitable to both parties.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The worker concerned has given exceptional service to
the Group for the past 10 years. He has been the only
full time employee in the Centre for many years and has
frequently assumed the Manager's responsibilities in his
absence. He did not receive or claim any payment for
these extra duties.
2. The worker is an "innocent victim" of Management's
decision to close the Upholstery Unit in Ballinamore
while other Upholstery Units continue to function.
3. Management's offer is inadequate in comparison to rates
paid by other businesses where compensation payments
range from 6 months to 2 years.
4. A national ballot would be required if the formula
proposed by the Group was to be implemented nationally.
It may have been accepted by one individual in 1987 but
there is no evidence to show that it has been agreed and
should apply to all staff. Each case should be
considered on its own merit.
GROUP'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The compensation for loss of earnings formula was
negotiated and agreed in March, 1988. It is a fair,
equitable and reasonable formula which has been applied
on numerous occasions.
2. The formula was intended to have national application
throughout the Group as in the case of negotiated pay
agreements and the nationally applied redundancy
formula.
3. Labour Court Recommendation No. LCR11729 which issued on
4th March, 1988 concerning a similar dispute upheld the
Group's position and recommended implementation of the
formula.
4. The worker's position as Unit Supervisor is effectively
redundant, yet he was offered the choice either of
alternative employment or redundancy should he not find
his new position suitable.
5. There is no justification for departing from the agreed
formula in this case.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court has considered all of the views expressed by the parties
in their oral and written submissions, and has noted the Union's
contention that the circumstances in this case are exceptional.
In the light of the above, the Court recommends that, in this
case, the employee be paid a lump sum of £4,500 in full and final
settlement of his claim, which amount shall not be used as a
precedent in any future claim.
Given the nature of the organisation and the changes likely to
take place from time to time, the Court considers that the parties
should further discuss arrangements to apply where such cases
arise in the future.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
19th April, 1996 Tom McGrath
D.G./D.T. _________________
Deputy Chairman
Note
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to
Ms. Dympna Greene, Court Secretary.