FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 20(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : FORTE POST HOUSE HOTEL (REPRESENTED BY THE IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION) - AND - A WORKER (REPRESENTED BY SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION) DIVISION : Chairman: Ms Jenkinson Employer Member: Mr Keogh Worker Member: Mr O'Neill |
1. Alleged unfair dismissal.
BACKGROUND:
2. The worker concerned commenced employment with the Company in the early 1970's as a house assistant, her duties consisted of servicing guest bedrooms. In October, 1997, the worker injured her back during the course of her duties which necessitated an extended absence from work. During October, 1997, the Company undertook a rationalisation and re-organisation of its work practices and two redundancies arose on a voluntary basis. The worker concerned accepted a voluntary severance package in April, 1998. The worker claimed however, that she was not aware that she was being declared redundant and accepted a lump sum settlement because she was no longer entitled to sick benefit. The worker subsequently, submitted a claim to be re-instated in her position. The Company rejected the claim. On the 26th of January, 1999 the worker referred a complaint of unfair dismissal to the Labour Court under Section 20 (1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969. The worker agreed to be bound by the Court's recommendation. A Court hearing was held on the 1st of March, 1999.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. In February, 1998 the worker was offered £8,000 which she declined because it was insufficient to meet her financial commitments. However, in March, 1998, the worker received a phone call form Management inquiring as to her well being, she informed the Company that she was not fit enough to resume her duties. The worker was informed that the Company could only pay her sick benefit for a further two weeks. The worker at this stage was very confused, panic stricken, upset and uncertain as to what course of action to take.
2. The worker, in view of the fact that the sick payments were about to cease, but aware that because of her injury that she could not return to work felt that she had no option but to accept the offer of £8,000 which she surmised was related to her injury. Subsequently, she became aware that this was a redundancy settlement.
3. The worker felt that she was forced into this situation because of the particular circumstances of the case. She feels that she should be allowed to resume her duties, when fully fit, and the balance of the £8,000 settlement could be repaid to the Company in due course.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The worker accepted a voluntary redundancy package in April, 1998 and the Company was not aware that the worker had any grievance about the monetary amount of the settlement.
2. The worker did seek to have her job re-instated but this was not a feasible proposition as the redundancy position still stood.
3. The worker's declared interest and acceptance of the redundancy package is clear and unambiguous. The worker approached the Company in late February, 1998 after an unfit to return to work prognosis. Following some uncertainty she eventually decided to go through with the redundancy and signed the relevant certificate acknowledging receipt of the lump sum.
4. The Company does not deny that the personal circumstances of the worker had a mitigating influence on the final financial settlement. However, the redundancy option arose and the worker expressed an interest in availing of it. The terms of the financial settlement were made available to the claimant from the outset.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court is of the view that the termination of the claimant's employment was for valid redundancy reasons. The claimant was offered voluntary redundancy and was given to understand that she would be entitled to an ex-gratia redundancy package. At the hearing the Company indicated that the ex-gratia element on offer was £2,000 over and above her statutory entitlement.
The Court recommends that the redundancy package already paid, needs to be rechecked. Her "continuous service" should be calculated from the commencement for her employment record with the Company in August, 1973. It is agreed between both parties that her rate of pay at the time of redundancy was £250 per week and therefore, her redundancy payment should be calculated on that figure.
Any monies due, following this recheck, should be paid to the claimant without delay.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Caroline Jenkinson
19th March, 1999.______________________
TOD/BCDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Tom O'Dea, Court Secretary.