FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2004 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : PJ CARROLL - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Duffy Employer Member: Mr Grier Worker Member: Mr O'Neill |
1. Redundancy terms.
BACKGROUND:
2. The case before the Court concerns a dispute at P.J.Carroll which arose following restructuring within the Company. The claimants are employed in Sales and Administration with six years and thirty seven years service respectively. The claimants were invited to undergo training and assessment for new positions within the Company, but were deemed unsuitable. In line with procedures both staff members have been retained by the Company pending resolution of the dispute.
The Union are seeking an enhancement of the Voluntary Redundancy proposals applied to other staff members.
The Company reject the claim on the basis that offering different redundancy terms within the company will result in repercussive claims.
The dispute could not be resolved at local level and was the subject of a conciliation conference under the auspices of the Labour Relations Commission. As agreement was not reached, the dispute was referred to the Labour Court on the 4th of November, 2004, in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 18th of January, 2005.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The claimants are being made redundant on a compulsory basis. Accordingly they should be treated in a different way to the group who took voluntary redundancy.
2. The Sales representative had a high expectation of a career within the Company, and through no fault of his own will now struggle to find alternative employment within the industry. The clerical worker, with 37 years service, will also struggle to find alternative employment in the current labour market.
EMPLOYER'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The terms of the Redundancy proposals are extremely generous. Both claimants will receive 7 weeks pay per year of service inclusive of statutory entitlement, plus pension entitlement.
2. It is not Company policy to issue different redundancy terms to groups within the Company as there may be repercussive claims as a result.
RECOMMENDATION:
Having considered the submissions of the parties the Court recommends that the package proposed should be accepted subject to the two employees concerned being paid three months pay in lieu of notice.
This recommendation is made having regard to the circumstances of the case presented on behalf of the two individuals and is not intended to have any precedent value.
The improvements provided for by this recommendation should not be affected by the ceiling applied to redundancy payments under the current scheme.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Duffy
26th January, 2005______________________
AH./MB.Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Andrew Heavey, Court Secretary.