FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 13(9), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : GLANBIA FOODS - AND - A WORKER (REPRESENTED BY THE AMALGAMATED TRANSPORT & GENERAL WORKERS UNION) DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Duffy Employer Member: Mr Keogh Worker Member: Ms Ni Mhurchu |
1. Appeal of Rights Commissioner's Recommendation IR896/00/GF concerning claim for voluntary redundancy terms.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Company was formed following the merger of Avonmore and the Waterford Foods Group in 1997.
The worker concerned commenced employment with Waterford Foods in January, 1994. In December, 1996 he was appointed to the position of relief lorry driver and operated in a number of branches in the Southeast area. He has been based in the Ballydurran Branch since January, 2000.
The dispute concerns the Union's claim for voluntary redundancy on behalf of the worker. It argues that the Company eliminated the position held by the worker and accordingly he is entitled to be covered by the voluntary redundancy terms agreed between the parties in 1997. The Company rejects the claim. It argues that if the worker was granted redundancy, he would have to be replaced.
The matter was the subject of a Rights Commissioner's investigation on the 16th of June, 2000. The Rights Commissioner's findings and Recommendation are as follows:-
"I have considered this case carefully and I have come to the conclusion that a redundancy situation does not exist here.
I recommend that the claimant accept that the company's efforts to facilitate him are in his best interests and I would urge him to perform his normal duties in Ballydurran."
The Rights Commissioner's Recommendation was appealed by the Union to the Labour Court on the 16th of August, 2000 under Section 13(9) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969. The Court heard the appeal in Waterford on the 13th of September, 2000. A recommendation was issued by letter on the 18th of September, 2000.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Company privatised its Kilmeaden transport fleet and in the process eliminated the worker's job. In the circumstances he is entitled to avail of the voluntary redundancy terms as applied to all other transport workers.
2. The position offered by the Company would result in the loss of £4,000 per annum. This is unacceptable as it would involve additional travel of 20 miles daily.
3. The worker is seeking fair play and that he be paid voluntary redundancy terms as applied to all other workers whose jobs have been eroded.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The worker has a meaningful role within the company and in its attempt to facilitate him, the Company has made the following offers:-
1) Forklift driver Carrick-on-Suir
2) Branch manager Castlecullen
3) Branch manager Ballydurran
Option 1 included potential defraying of travel expenses.
Options 2, 3, include
a) full support and back up, training on any aspects required, and an offer of personal support from the area manager.
b) Salary and Performance Related Pay
c) Improved pension scheme
Despite meeting the worker on a number of occasions to discuss the above, he showed little or no willingness to take on board the Company's position. In the case of Carrick-on-Suir, having kept the position open for a period of time, the Company had to recruit externally.
2. The Company believes it has been reasonable in its offers to the worker, and has treated him fairly in all its dealings with him. It believes he is unreasonable in expecting the Company to provide a redundancy package, given the above offers, and with the current vacancy on offer in this region. His attitude is unhelpful, particularly in the current economic situation. The Company is hoping that he can accept the position even at this late stage.
DECISION:
The Company now accepts that the position in which the claimant was employed no longer exists. This constitutes a situation of redundancy unless suitable alternative employment can be provided. The claimant does not, however, regard the alternative employment offered as suitable. It is noted that the Company is prepared to enter into discussions with the Union on the terms and conditions applicable to the job offered.
In the Court's view, if the rate of pay agreed is no less favourable than that which applied to the former position and due regard is had to the additional travel involved, the alternative employment offered should be regarded as suitable and should be accepted by the claimant.
The Recommendation of the Rights Commissioner is varied accordingly.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Duffy
29 September, 2000______________________
FB/CCDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Decision should be addressed to Fran Brennan, Court Secretary.