FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2001 SECTION 13(9), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : FRUIT OF THE LOOM (REPRESENTED BY IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION) - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION) DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Duffy Employer Member: Mr Pierce Worker Member: Mr. Somers |
1. Appeal of Rights Commissioner's Recommendations IR11887, IR12012, IR12013/02/TB.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Company is a multinational company engaged in manufacturing leisurewear for the export market. In November, 2001, the Company announced the closure of the Shore Road facility in Buncrana with the consolidation of operations onto the Ballymacarry site, resulting in 65 redundancies. The dispute concerns 3 workers who were on extended sick leave at the time and to whom the Company had refused to extend redundancy terms. (Worker A was on sick leave from the 27th of April, 2002, Worker B was on leave from the 8th of October, 2001, and Worker C from 30th of April, 2001.) The terms offered were statutory redundancy with ex-gratia severance payment of 3.5 weeks' pay per year of service. All applications for voluntary redundancy were to be submitted in writing by the 21st of August, 2002.
The Union referred the case to a Rights Commissioner whose recommendation was as follows:
"On the basis of the evidence I believe that the Company had the discretion to refuse the applications. I do not recommend in favour of the Union position."
The Union appealed the recommendation to the Labour Court on the 26th of May, 2003, in accordance with Section 13(9) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 3rd of September, 2003, in Donegal.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. In accordance with the redundancy agreement reached on the 17th of September, 2002, the 3 workers were entitled to apply for voluntary redundancy. They satisfied the criteria laid down in the agreement.
2. The Company never raised the issue of sick leave during discussions on the agreement.
3. The Company had previously paid 50% of a severance package to 2 workers who were on long-term sick leave.
4. Worker A had returned to work prior to the closing date for voluntary retirement applications. The Company has since dismissed Workers B and C which has saved the Company paying redundancy terms.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Company closed the Shore Road plant in order to reduce cost and improve its operational efficiencies. The key priority was to reduce the number of people employed.
2. Worker A had a history of long-term absences from the Company. He returned to work 2 days prior to the closing date for voluntary redundancy despite indicating to the Company that further specialist treatment was necessary.
3. Workers B and C had been on considerable long-term sick leave and were still absent on the 21st of August, 2002. The Company had made it clear at a previous redundancy situation that only those who had actually returned to work on the date acceptances were issued would be accepted. On this occasion, it did not invite applications from those on long-term sick leave.
DECISION:
The Court has given careful consideration to the submissions of the parties in this case.
In the case of Worker A, the only reason which the Court can see as to why his application was not considered is that he had recently been absent on sick leave. In the Court's view, it was neither fair nor reasonable to have excluded him for that reason. The Court recommends that his application be accepted and that he be paid the full terms agreed.
In the case of Workers B and C, the Court considers that, having regard to their circumstances, they should receive severance payments equal to 50% of the agreed terms.
The Court so recommends.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Duffy
18th September, 2003______________________
CON/MB.Deputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Decision should be addressed to Ciaran O'Neill, Court Secretary.