FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2004 SECTION 20(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : CAVAN & LEITRIM RAILWAY CO. LTD - AND - A WORKER (REPRESENTED BY SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION) DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Duffy Employer Member: Mr Doherty Worker Member: Mr Nash |
1. Compensation.
BACKGROUND:
2. The worker concerned was employed by Cavan and Leitrim Railway Company Limited under a Fás scheme from April 2004 until the scheme ceased in April 2005. Other personnel were also employed under the scheme and all wage costs were paid by Fás.
All employees received due notice of their redundancy and where eligible, their statutory redundancy lump sum. The worker concerned did not receive a redundancy lump sum as he had been employed less than one year.
The Union on behalf of the worker are seeking compensation for his unfair dismissal. The Union referred the claim to the Labour Court on the 8th August, 2005, in accordance with Section 20(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969 and agreed to be bound by the Court's recommendation. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 20th April, 2006.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1.The contract states that termination can be carried out by reason of redundancy. The work for which the worker was employed still exists and is carried out by an unpaid volunteer.
2. The Company's decision has deprived a vulnerable group of workers of the opportunity to make a worthwhile contribution to their community.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The dismissal was by way of redundancy and the Company complied fully with all its legal obligations.
2. The worker did not have any entitlement to a statutory lump sum and has not in any way been treated unfairly.
RECOMMENDATION:
It is clear that the Claimant's employment came to an end in circumstances where the Company decided to carry on the work for which he was employed by voluntary labour. Thus the Company's need for employees to perform this work ceased. This brought about a situation of redundancy. Since all other employees were similarly made redundant there can be no issue of unfair selection.
Since the Claimant's employment terminated by reason of redundancy the Court cannot hold that the dismissal was unfair.
The Court notes that all other employees who were made redundant qualified for and were paid a statutory redundancy lump sum. Because of his service the Claimant did not qualify for a statutory payment. However, in the circumstances of this case the Court recommends that the Claimant be paid an ex-gratia lump sum in the amount of €400 in full and final settlement of his claim.
In making this recommendation the Court is influenced by the fact that the Claimant, uniquely amongst those let go, did not qualify for a redundancy payment. The recommendation should not be quoted or relied upon as a basis for any claim by others formerly employed by the Company.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Duffy
28th April, 2006______________________
MG.Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Madelon Geoghegan, Court Secretary.