FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2001 SECTION 13(9), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : CHILDREN'S MEDICAL AND RESEARCH FOUNDATION ( OUR LADY'S HOSPITAL FOR SICK CHILDREN (REPRESENTED BY IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION) - AND - A WORKER (REPRESENTED BY SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION) DIVISION : Chairman: Ms Jenkinson Employer Member: Mr Keogh Worker Member: Ms Ni Mhurchu |
1. Appeal against Rights Commissioners Recommendation IR7635/02/JH.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Foundation is the fundraising/charitable wing of Our Lady's Hospital for Sick Children, Crumlin. The claimant worked for the Foundation for ten years as one of two regional managers. The worker was due to retire on the 19th February 2002, having reached the retirement age of sixty five.
The Union claims that the worker should have been offered employment post-retirement. It states that there was a precedent for this whereby the other regional manager was offered employment post-retirement.
Management rejects the Union's claim and states that because an individual deal was done with a previous employee, in order to facilitate organisational needs, does not mean that all staff would be entitled to expect re-employment upon their retirement.
This dispute was the subject of a Rights Commissioners hearing which took place on the 29th May, 2002. The following is the Rights Commissioners Recommendation:
"On the basis of the submissions made and for the reasons set out above I recommend that this dispute be settled by payment to the worker of €17,000. This payment , if accepted, is to be in full and final settlement of any claim by the worker against his former employer and a commitment by him not to engage in any further communication regarding his employment relationship to other parties."
The Union appealed the Recommendation on the 5th July 2002, in accordance with Section 13(9) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969. The Court investigated the dispute on the 24th January, 2003 (the earliest date suitable to the parties).
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The worker had a well founded and solid expectation that he would be retained in his post after the age of sixty five.
2. The claimant was informed that he would only be retained if the Union agreed to the reorganised structure being proposed by management.
3. The worker informed management that the proposed changes would have to be negotiated and agreed by staff as per the 1997 agreement.
4. Management has provided no rationale for the proposed reorganisation and the membership would not accept it in its current form.
MANAGEMENT'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The worker was informed that retirement at sixty five applies to everyone and that the organisation would not be making an exception in his case.
2. Management rejects the Union's claim that the worker was discriminated against because of his position as shop steward in the organisation.
3. The worker ignored a long-standing and specific policy in the organisation that any communications with significant content was to be first checked and cleared by the Chief Executive.
4. Management accepted the Rights Commissioner's Recommendation in the hope that it would resolve the issue once and for all.
DECISION:
The Court has examined the oral and written submissions of both sides to this appeal and having given careful consideration to the case concurs with the findings and recommendation of the Rights Commissioner. Accordingly, the Court dismisses the appeal and upholds the recommendation of the Rights Commissioner.
The Court so decides.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Caroline Jenkinson
3rd February, 2003______________________
LW/BRDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Decision should be addressed to Larry Wisely, Court Secretary.