FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2004 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : GLENCULLEN COMMERCIAL VEHICLES LIMITED - AND - A WORKER (REPRESENTED BY NORMAN CROKE) DIVISION : Chairman: Ms Jenkinson Employer Member: Mr Doherty Worker Member: Mr Nash |
1. Redundancy
BACKGROUND:
2. The worker joined Renault Distributors in 1972. He commenced employment with Drumcondra Motors in 1991 and joined Glencullen Commercial Vehicles Limited (the Company) in 1999. His employment with the Company was terminated by way of redundancy on the 31st of December, 2004, due to the closure of the van centre at Citywest, Dublin. The worker was offered a new position with Renault Liffey Valley on conditions which, the worker claims, were considerably worse than those he enjoyed with the Company, including a salary that was almost €8,000 less per year. Discussions took place between the worker and management but, in the event, he declined the new position at Liffey Valley. The worker received statutory redundancy payment only (details supplied to the Court) which in total come to €14,729.10. The Company offered to sell the worker a Scenic Megane 2004 car for €14,000 (market value €20,000 - €22,000) in full and final settlement of his redundancy but he refused the offer.
The case was eventually referred to the Labour Relations Commission and a conciliation conference took place in January, 2006. At the conference the Company offered the worker an extra statutory sum of €5,000 which he rejected. The offer has since been withdrawn. The worker is seeking 6 weeks' pay per year of service which, the Company agrees, came to 14 years. This was calculated at approximately €72,000. As there was no agreement between the parties, the dispute was referred to the Labour Court on the 10th of April, 2006, in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 27th of July, 2006.
WORKER'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The worker, whilst unhappy with the proposed unilateral transfer to Renault Liffey Valley, was prepared to move subject to the continuance of the pay and conditions he had enjoyed with the Company. Considering the inferior conditions on offer he felt he had little choice but to take redundancy.
2. The worker was treated very badly by the Company. He had been a loyal employee over many years and was shocked that the trust and friendship he thought he enjoyed with the Company's owner had broken down.
3. In previous cases of redundancy in 2000 the Company had paid an extra statutory redundancy package of 6 weeks' pay per year of service. The worker deserves the same payment.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. Renault Liffey Valley, where the worker was offered a job in December, 2004, is a completely separate entity to Glencullen Commercial Vehicles Limited. As such the Company could not influence the terms and conditions of employment on offer. His refusal to accept what the Company believe was an excellent opportunity left it with no choice but to make him redundant.
2. The closure of the van centre resulted as a change of European Block Regulations applicable across the European motor industry. The closure was outside the control of the Company.
3. There was extensive consultation with all staff affected, particularly the worker concerned. Every effort was made to minimise the effect of the closure. The worker took up a new job almost immediately after his redundancy took place.
4. The worker was paid his full statutory entitlements, including a good will pay of €2,670. The car offer and a €5,000 offer were both rejected.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court has considered the claim for an ex-gratia redundancy payment on behalf of the claimant who was employed for a period of 14 years before being made redundant in 2004. Having considered all aspects of this claim, the Court recommends that the Company should pay him an ex-gratia payment of €45,000 in addition to those payments already made. This ex-gratia payment should be accepted by the claimant in full and final settlement of his claim. The Court recommends that the Company should make this payment without delay.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Caroline Jenkinson
2nd August, 2006______________________
CO'N/EWDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Ciaran O'Neill, Court Secretary.