FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 13(9), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : GLANBIA FOODS LTD - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Duffy Employer Member: Mr Pierce Worker Member: Ms Ni Mhurchu |
1. Appeal against Rights Commissioner's Recommendation IR913/99/GF.
BACKGROUND:
2. The case concerns a claim by the Union for a redundancy/relocation package for one of its members. The Union states that negotiations began in 1997 and concluded in March, 1999, on such a package. It claims that the Company proposed to close its Rathfarnham site following the merger of Avonmore and Waterford Foods.
The agreement provided for the following options:
(a) staff could avail of an enhanced redundancy package;
(b) to relocate to another site with a relocation allowance with the option to avail of the redundancy package within 3 months.
The Union claims that the Company has failed to honour this agreement in relation to its member.
The Company states that the claimant had accepted a promotion which had arisen out the new restructuring programme and that the position now held by the claimant was not redundant and he was therefore, not entitled to the redundancy package.
The dispute was the subject of a Rights Commissioner's hearing which took place on the 2nd of December, 1999. The following is the Rights Commissioner's Recommendation:
"I have given this case very careful consideration and I must conclude that although the actual position is not redundant the claimant is fully covered by the Company/Trade Union Agreement and in accordance with its terms, is entitled to avail of the redundancy package."
The Company appealed the Recommendation to the Labour Court on the 14th of March, 2000, in accordance with Section 13(9) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969. The Court investigated the dispute on the 20th of June, 2000.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. There is a Company/Union agreement in relation to the closure of the Rathfarnham site. The Company should honour this agreement.
2. The claimant has not been afforded the same entitlements as other workers employed at the Rathfarnham site.
3. The whole process was on a voluntary basis. It provided that no member would be coerced to relocate or forced to take redundancy and the redundancy package was available to all who opted for it, regardless of whether their job was redundant or not.
4. The worker should be allowed to exercise his preferred option without any further delay.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The worker accepted a promotion which had arisen as a result of the restructuring. This position is not redundant and as such no redundancy payment arises.
2. There have been significant changes since the merger of Avonmore and Waterford Foods. Any decision now to allow the claimant to avail of the redundancy package would impact adversely on the Company.
3. There was no application for redundancy from the claimant prior to the closure date of 24th of March, 1999.
4. There will be knock-on effects for the Company if the claim is conceded.
DECISION:
Having regard to the agreement concluded between the parties, the terms of which are set out in the Company's information document dated December 1997 and its letter to the Union dated March 1999, the Court can see no basis on which the claimant can be excluded from the agreed voluntary severance arrangements.
In these circumstances the Court concurs with the conclusions and Recommendation of the Rights Commissioner. The appeal is disallowed and the Recommendation of the Rights Commissioner is affirmed.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Duffy
7th July, 2000.______________________
LW/BCDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Decision should be addressed to Larry Wisely, Court Secretary.