FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2001 SECTION 13(9), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : TOOL & PLASTIC (REPRESENTED BY IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION) - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Duffy Employer Member: Mr Doherty Worker Member: Mr O'Neill |
1. Appeal against Rights Commissioner's Recommendation IR9368/02//LM.
BACKGROUND:
2. The appeal concerns a worker who was employed by the Company from September, 1992 until March, 2003 when she was declared redundant. The worker was paid statutory redundancy entitlements. The Union sought enhanced redundancy payments on behalf of the worker. Management rejected the claim. The dispute was referred to a Rights Commissioner for investigation and recommendation. On the 27th March,200 the Rights Commissioner issued her recommendation as follows:
"The company position is upheld. The claim fails."
On the 2nd May, 2003 the Union appealed the recommendation to the Labour Court. The Court heard the appeal in Athlone on the 21st October, 2003.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The claimant spent all her working life in the Company on days as an assembler and printer. When the printing function was discontinued Management offered the claimant shift work. She could not accept the offer as it was unsuitable for social and domestic reasons.
2. The claimant was a long serving conscientious employee and it is the norm for good employers to pay employees agreed multiples of their statutory entitlements.
3. It is unfair and unreasonable to terminate the claimant's employment by reason of redundancy and to only pay her statutory compensation of a half week's pay per year of service.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Company faces serious competitive and trading difficulties and is in a loss making situation. It cannot afford to pay enhanced redundancy payments.
2. The Company did offer the claimant alternative employment on shift work but she refused the offer, even though she signed an application for employment in 1992 to work the Company's shift system.
3. At all times in discussions the Company made it clear that statutory redundancy only would be paid to the claimant. This was the situation with other employees in the Company who had been made redundant and the claimant was treated in the same fashion.
DECISION:
The Court has considered the submissions of the parties and the additional information submitted at the Court's request following the meeting.
It is clear that the claimant in the present case was treated the same as other workers made redundant in recent times. In these circumstances, and in the absence of any agreement on enhanced redundancy terms, concession of the Union's claim would create an anomaly in relation to those previously made redundant.
Accordingly, the Court does not recommend concession of the claim.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Duffy
14th November, 2003______________________
todDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Decision should be addressed to Tom O'Dea, Court Secretary.