FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2001 SECTION 13(9), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : KING FOODS LIMITED (REPRESENTED BY IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION) - AND - A WORKER (REPRESENTED BY MANDATE) DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Flood Employer Member: Mr Keogh Worker Member: Ms Ni Mhurchu |
1. Appeal against Rights Commissioner's recommendation IR4505/01/JH.
BACKGROUND:
2. King Foods Limited is a wholly owned subsidiary of Tayto Limited, which in turn is part of the Cantrell and Cochran group of companies. The Union states that the worker was the senior sales supervisor in King Foods Limited.
In 2000, plans were announced to amalgamate the King Foods sales and administration functions into the Tayto framework. A voluntary severance package was offered to employees of King Foods Limited. The Union states that the claimant was informed that his position was being wound up and that he would be offered a new position within the restructured organisation. It was claimed by management that his new position would protect his status and professional reputation and that any changes to his current terms and conditions would be reflected in a new contract of employment. The Union argues that the claimant's new role within the new restructured Company did not materialise and that a redundancy situation now exists.
Management claims that a redundancy situation does not exist in relation to the position currently occupied by the claimant.
The dispute was the subject of a Rights Commissioner's hearing which took place on the 30th of July, 2001. The following is the Rights Commissioner's recommendation:-
"I recommend that the Company provide the worker with full details of the sales supervisory role offered at the hearing within 3 weeks of the date of issue of this recommendation. In the event that the role proposed by the Company is not acceptable to the worker, I recommend that he receive a severance calculated on the same basis as the offer made by the Company with an additional top up payment of £20,000."
The Union appealed the recommendation to the Labour Court on the 19th of September, 2001, in accordance with Section 13(9) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969. The Court investigated the dispute on the 28th of February, 2002.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The terms of redundancy offered to other employees of King Foods Limited should apply to the claimant concerned.
2. The claimant was promised a new management post equal to his current post within the restructured organisation but this failed to materialise.
3. As the Company has failed to offer the claimant suitable alternative employment, he has effectively been made redundant.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. There is no redundancy situation in relation to the claimant. There is a position for him within the organisation.
2. The Company is not in a position to agree to the redundancy terms as sought by the claimant.
3. The Company has made a reasonable severance offer to the worker which has been rejected.
4. Any concession of the claim would lead to knock-on claims from other employees.
DECISION:
In her recommendation the Rights Commissioner recommended that the claimant be paid £20,000
(€25,395.00) in addition to the severance offer made by the Company, if he found the role proposed by the Company to be unacceptable.
The claimant has indicated that the proposed post is unacceptable and, therefore, the Court is asked to recommend appropriate redundancy terms.
The Court having considered all of the issues involved in this case recommends that the claimant be paid a lump sum severance amount of €86,342.00 (£68,000) in full and final settlement of his claim
The Rights Commissioner's recommendation to be amended accordingly. The Court so decides.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Finbarr Flood
16th March, 2002______________________
LW/CCChairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Decision should be addressed to Larry Wisely, Court Secretary.