Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD9623 Case Number: LCR15095 Section / Act: S20(1) Parties: WILLIAMS WALLER LIMITED - and - A WORKER |
Redundancy settlement.
Recommendation:
Having considered the views expressed by both parties in their
oral and written submissions the Court, given all the
circumstances, recommends that the claimant be paid a further lump
sum of £10,000.
Division: Mr McGrath Mr McHenry Mr Walsh
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD9623 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR15095
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 20(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969
PARTIES:
WILLIAMS WALLER LIMITED
AND
A WORKER
SUBJECT:
1. Redundancy settlement.
BACKGROUND:
2. The worker became redundant, at age 53, in April, 1995. The
Company's normal redundancy terms are 3 weeks' pay for year
of service plus statutory. The worker concerned received a
total redundancy payment of £60,005 plus an additional
'top-up' of £5,000. The dispute concerns the amount of the
'top-up'. A former employee of the Company who became
redundant in June, 1992 received a'top-up' of £20,000. The
worker concerned claims that he should have received the same
amount.
The worker referred the dispute to the Labour Court on 8th
January, 1996, in accordance with Section 20(1), Industrial
Relations Act, 1969. A Labour Court hearing took place on
13th February, 1996, in Tullamore.
WORKER'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The worker was 22 years with the Company. The employee
who received the £20,000 'top-up' was employed for 13
years by them. The worker has 3 children to support and
a mortgage to pay, something the other employee does not
have. Since being made redundant, the worker has been
unable to secure permanent employment.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The employee who was made redundant in 1992 was paid a
total of £26,000 redundancy. The worker received
£60,005. The additional £20,000 was by way of a
contribution to him to top up his pension plan. His
pension benefits were based on 30/60ths of pensionable
salary at age 65. Pension benefits for the worker are
40/60ths. It was felt that the previous employee, at
age 59 and with his qualifications, was not in a very
marketable position regarding future employment. The
Company felt that the worker concerned, aged 53 and with
his accountancy qualifications, had a far greater chance
for future employment.
RECOMMENDATION:
Having considered the views expressed by both parties in their
oral and written submissions the Court, given all the
circumstances, recommends that the claimant be paid a further lump
sum of £10,000.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
6 March, 1996 Tom McGrath
C.O'N./S.G. __________________
Deputy Chairman
Note
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to
Mr. Ciaran O'Neill, Court Secretary.