FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2004 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : CAMPBELL CATERING LIMITED (REPRESENTED BY IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION) - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Duffy Employer Member: Mr Grier Worker Member: Mr O'Neill |
1. Redundancy compensation
BACKGROUND:
2. The Company provides catering services for over 400 clients across Ireland. The worker was initially employed at the Glanbia plant in Rooskey in December, 1990. She continued working there until a fire at the plant in May, 2002, forced the majority of workers to be laid off. The worker concerned was offered a job in June, 2002, at the Company's MBNA plant in Carrick-on-Shannon pending the re-opening of the Glanbia site. She agreed to try working hours of 7.30 a.m. to 1.30 p.m. which suited her domestic situation. In November, 2002, the hours changed, by agreement, to 6.30 a.m. to 2.30 p.m. This continued until February, 2003, when the worker was off sick following an accident at work. When the worker returned in May, 2003, she was told that the only hours available were 9.00 am to 5.30 pm. Although unhappy with the hours, the worker agreed to try them but found that she could not manage them.
The Union's case is that in March, 2003, Glanbia announced that it would not be rebuilding the plant that had burned down, resulting in redundancy being offered to all employees except the worker concerned. The worker had expected to return to Glanbia and should have been offered the same redundancy terms as all other workers. The Company's case is that the worker resigned from her position in October, 2003.
The dispute was referred to the Labour Relations Commission and a conciliation conference took place. As the parties did not reach agreement, the dispute was referred to the Labour Court on the 17th of February, 2005, in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 14th of July, 2005, in Sligo.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. As the worker was an employee of the Company on its Rooskey contract when it terminated, she should have been compensated like all her colleagues for the loss of her job.
2. The worker transferred to Carrick-on-Shannon on a temporary basis pending the re-opening of the Rooskey operation. The work did not suit her (due to her domestic situation) and, therefore, was not suitable alternative employment.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The worker was not dismissed from her position. She resigned of her own free will. The Company clearly indicated that her position was not redundant. She was treated fairly at all times.
2. The worker was offered alternative work following the fire at Rooskey. Only one other employee was offered similar work. The worker did not raise any objections to the alternative position and worked from June, 2002, to August, 2003, when she was offered carer's leave.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court accepts that the claimant was assured that the assignment to the alternative location would be temporary. Consequently she had a reasonable and legitimate expectation of returning to her original location in Rooskey. The permanent loss of the Rooskey contract, coupled with the change in hours requiring her attendance during the afternoon, resulted in a situation in which the claimant felt unable to continue working having regard to her domestic responsibilities.
There is doubt as to whether the termination of the claimant's employment can be properly classified as arising by reason of redundancy. Nonetheless, having regard to all the circumstances, the Court believes that doubt should be resolved in the claimant's favour and that, in the very specific circumstances of the case, she should be included in the redundancy settlement reached in respect of other former Rooskey employees. However, account must be taken of the fact that the claimant did obtain employment over the period when others were on lay-off and that her hours of work and her rate of pay had increased beyond what it was on the Rooskey contract.
In consequence, the Court is of the view that the claimant should receive 50% of the terms of the package made available to her colleagues who were made redundant.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Duffy
2nd August, 2005______________________
CON/DHChairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Ciaran O'Neill, Court Secretary.