FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 13(9), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : ABS - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Duffy Employer Member: Mr Keogh Worker Member: Mr O'Neill |
1. Appeal against Rights Commissioner's Recommendation IR 1596/00/JH.
BACKGROUND:
2. This dispute concerns the non payment of severance payment to the worker. The Company has made severance payment to employees in certain circumstances since 1980. The issue was the subject of a Conciliation Conference under the auspices of the Labour Relations Commission and by agreement was referred to the Rights Commissioner. The Rights Commissioner heard the case on 8th September 2000 and issued the following recommendation. "Based on the submissions made at the hearing and for the reasons set out in the conclusions above, I recommend that Mr. Dodd's should receive £9,500 as a severance payment, in full and final settlement of his claim against the Company".
- The Company appealed the recommendation under Section 13 (9) of the Industrial
Relations Act, 1969. A Labour Court hearing took place on 24th April 2001.
3. 1. The Union is contesting the inequitable way in which the severance arrangements have not been applied to the worker.
2. The worker strongly contends that agreement was reached on his severance arrangement but that the Company subsequently refused to honour this agreement.
3. The worker was not replaced in the Company.
4. A requirement was placed on the worker to remove himself from the workforce for 6 months and this requirement was not placed on anybody else.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Worker was fully aware that he did not qualify under the criteria when he handed in his notice.
2. The worker was treated no differently to others who left the Company.
3. Payment of redundancy to those choosing to take up employment elsewhere, where the Company is not seeking to reduce numbers was never agreed by the Company.
4. The application of the Rights Commissioner's Recommendation would create enormous difficulties for the Company both in terms of those who have changed jobs over the last couple of years and not been paid severance and even for those currently serving notice (two at present).
DECISION:
It is agreed between parties that the scheme at issue operates at the absolute discretion of management. It seems to the Court that a necessary corollary of that discretion is that the decision of management as to the availability of a severance package in any particular case should be accepted as final. For that reason the Court is of the opinion that to expose management decisions in individual cases to third party review would be incompatible with the accepted fundamental nature of the arrangement and could jeopardise its continuance.
It is noted that the position as outlined above is not disputed by the Union. Rather, its contention in the present case is that the claimant had concluded an agreement with management by which he was to have received a severance. Their claim is that this concluded agreement should be implemented.
On the facts of the case the Court does not accept that final agreement was reached between the claimant and the Company. The Court does, however, accept that the claimant misunderstood the import of the discussion which he had with the Human Resources Manager and genuinely believed that he would receive a severance payment.
In the circumstances of this case the Court suggests (without formally recommending) that the management might reconsider the claimant's case. In so doing they might take account of the fact that the claimant did candidly explain his future employment plans and that he did genuinely believe that he would receive a payment.
For its part the Union should accept that, upon re-examination, the management's decision should be accepted as final.
The appeal is allowed and the Rights Commissioner Recommendation is varied accordingly.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Duffy
8th May, 2001______________________
HMCD/BRDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Decision should be addressed to Helena McDermott, Court Secretary.