FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2004 SECTION 20(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : UNIVERSITY OF LIMERICK STUDENTS UNION - AND - A WORKER (REPRESENTED BY SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION) DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Duffy Employer Member: Mr Grier Worker Member: Mr O'Neill |
1. Enhanced redundancy payments.
BACKGROUND:
2. The worker was employed as an accountant initially and then as a financial controller with the employer from April, 1997, to March, 2004. In January, 2004, he was one of four employees issued with an RPI form which provided for termination of his employment, and he was duly paid statutory redundancy. The employer also made the General Manager redundant at the same time, with the idea of amalgamating both roles into one post, thus saving €61,000 per annum. Although the worker expressed an interest in the new post, he was unsuccessful in attaining it. The Union is seeking an enhanced redundancy payment.
The Union referred the case to the Labour Court on the 22nd of October, 2004, in accordance with Section 20(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969. A Labour Court hearing took place in Limerick on the 2nd of February, 2005. The worker agreed to be bound by the Court's recommendation.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The worker was not offered the new post as a reasonable alternative although he had a good record of employment and was willing to take a salary cut of €11,000 per annum. He made enquiries about the post but received no response. As a result he did not make an application for the job.
2. The Employer cited financial difficulties as a reason for the redundancy but it was still able to retain and pay a consultant.
3.The worker believes that he was blamed for difficult financial circumstances that arose despite his repeated efforts to have these difficulties addressed by management.
EMPLOYER'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. It became clear in late 2003 that the Students' Union was in financial difficulty and a number of cutbacks were made. However, in January, 2004, it became apparent that there was a grave financial crisis (the Employer supplied details to the Court). There was no choice but to make four members of staff redundant including the worker concerned. Each of the workers was paid statutory redundancy only.
2. It would be unfair on the other members made redundant if the worker concerned received enhanced redundancy. Increased payments to all of the members would cause even more financial problems for the Employer.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court is of the view that, notwithstanding the financial circumstances of the employment at the time the disputed redundancy was put into effect, the claim for an enhanced redundancy payment was not unreasonable.
The Court recommends that the employer should now offer and the claimant should accept an additional payment equal to two weeks' pay per year of service (without any cap on the weekly amount) in full and final settlement of his claim.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Duffy
15th February, 2005______________________
CON/MB.Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Ciaran O'Neill, Court Secretary.