FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 20(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : PIERCE ENGINEERING - AND - A WORKER DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Duffy Employer Member: Mr Keogh Worker Member: Mr O'Neill |
1. Enhanced redundancy.
BACKGROUND:
2. This dispute concerns a claim for enhanced redundancy compensation for the worker.
The worker was employed by the Company since 1984 and was made redundant on
10th March 2001. The worker referred the case to the Labour Court under Section
20(1) of the Industrial Relations Act 1969 on 12th March 2001. A Labour Court
hearing took place on 1st May 2001.
WORKERS ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. Other staff have been treated more favourably than he has.
2. It is normal practice that voluntary terms are not less favourable than compulsory terms.
3. In the case of single or individual cases of Management redundancies it is usual for direct negotiations to be pursued and relatively generous packages to be agreed on a without precedent basis.
4. Since 1987 compulsory redundancy has not been invoked in the company and agreement was reached before dismissals were effected.
5. The Company has shown an operating profit regularly over its lifetime - £300,000 (380,921.42 Euros) for year ended 4th April 2000.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4 1. The redundancy of the complainant was part of an immediate cut-back in the management structure due to the Company losing money in the last financial year as a result of poor market condition for its product.
2. No previous management member has ever received better terms than those offered to the worker.
3. It would be grossly unfair and inequitable to pay a member of management better terms than those agreed a few weeks earlier with employees who had up to 21 years service.
4. The Company is at the limit of what it can afford, given its current weakened financial state and taking into account the past and future projected loss making position.
5 The Company does not wish to create any predendents whereby people who have already been made redundant would make a knock-on claim.
RECOMMENDATION:
Having considered the submissions of the parties the Court is satisfied that, having regard to the claimants age, length of service, the position which he held in the Company and the compulsory nature of the redundancy the financial terms offered by the company are inadequate.
In all the circumstances of the case the Court recommends that the company offer and that the claimant accept a redundancy payment of £40,000 (50,789.52 Euros), inclusive of all statutory entitlements.
This recommendation is made on the basis that it will have no precedent value in relation to any other redundancies .
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Duffy
11th May, 2001______________________
HMCD/BRDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Helena McDermott, Court Secretary.