FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 13(9), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : MODERN NETWORKS LIMITED (REPRESENTED BY C I F) - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Ms Jenkinson Employer Member: Mr Keogh Worker Member: Mr O'Neill |
1. Appeal by the Company against Rights Commissioner's recommendation IR/899/99 GF.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Company is engaged in subcontract work for the Telecommunications Industry. The appeal concerns 6 general operatives who were employed on a contract in general manual work and the operation of site equipment. They were in the Company's employment for approximately six months and were dismissed in June, 1999. The Union claimed that the workers were unfairly selected for dismissal. The Company rejected the claim stating that a genuine redundancy situation existed. The dispute was referred to a Rights Commissioner for investigation. On the 17th May, 2000, the Rights Commissioner issued his recommendation as follows:
"I have given the evidence very careful consideration and I am completely satisfied the selection procedure was unfair. Therefore, I am recommending that the claimant be paid the sum of £800 compensation in full and final settlement of this claim".
On the 20th May, 2000, the Company appealed the recommendation to the Labour Court. The Court heard the appeal on the 5th October, 2000.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. Problems arose with the contract in which the Company was involved and most of the workforce, apart from those required for essential maintenance, were let go. Initially 50 workers and then 12, including the claimants, had their employment terminated. Management used the selection criteria of work performance, ability to do the job, and length of service in order to determine when workers' contracts would be terminated. They received payment in lieu of notice. The Company had no other option available but to make their workers redundant.
2. Fifty workers were let go before the claimants. They cannot claim that they were selected ahead of others in the Company.
3. Most of the remaining employees, apart from those needed for essential maintenance, were let go within a few months of the claimants.
4. While 50 workers were let go before the claimants, only those 6 and 6 others, who were let go at the same time, raised any queries regarding selection criteria used to determine when particular contracts of employment were to be terminated.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The workers concerned were dismissed without prior discussion with the Union or its representatives. A number of other workers who had less service or skills than the claimants were retained. No proper criteria for selection were used.
2. While the case of the 6 claimants was referred to a Rights Commissioner because of their lack of service required to pursue a claim under the Unfair Dismissals Act, 1977 - 1993, 6 other workers had the requisite service and did process their claim under that Act. The Employment Appeals Tribunal issued a determination in their favour, deeming their dismissals to be unfair. A similar set of circumstances existed for the six claimants. The Union believes that the Tribunal decision reinforces the Rights Commissioner's recommendation in relation to the 6 claimants and requests the Court to uphold the recommendation.
DECISION:
The Court has given consideration to all aspects of this appeal and does not see any reason to alter the Rights Commissioner's recommendation. Therefore, the Rights Commissioner's recommendation is upheld and the appeal fails.
The Court so decides.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Caroline Jenkinson
16th October, 2000______________________
TOD/CCDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Decision should be addressed to Larry Wisely, Court Secretary.