FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2004 SECTION 20(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : UNILEVER IRELAND - AND - A WORKER DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Duffy Employer Member: Mr Murphy Worker Member: Mr O'Neill |
1. Loss Of Line Leader Money; 10% On Redundancy Package; Stress & Worry
BACKGROUND:
2. The Worker was appointed to his position in October 2003 and worked a day shift. A 10% premium was paid to the worker as he was Line Leader. The Worker successfully applied for a position on the evening shift. On commencing work on the evening shift, it became apparent to the Worker that he was not being paid the 10% Line Leader premium. It is the Worker's claim that the Company never notified him at the interview or in writing that he would lose the premium payment. In a different area to the worker where the evening shift was ceased, the Line Leaders were paid their premium whilst performing other duties. It is also the Worker's claim that the redundancy packages of other workers were in excess of his. The Company indicated by letter that they would not be attending the Labour Court hearing and outlined their position in response to the Worker's claim.
On 23rd July, 2007 the Worker referred the issue to the Labour Court, in accordance with Section 20(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 1st November, 2007. The Worker agreed to be bound by the Court's Recommendation.
WORKER'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1 At no time was the Worker notified in writing that the Line Leader premium was being stopped. Line Leaders who's manufacturing line ceased altogether and were moved to other duties continued to receive the relevant premium payments.
2 A number of workers received redundancy payments in excess of the Worker concerned. They were paid a 10% premium on top of the agreed package because of their Line Leader status.
3 All the Worker requests is equal treatment. The trade union advised accepting his redundancy package as he risked losing considerable amounts of the deal if he did not.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1 It was at the Worker's request that he moved to the evening shift.
2 The Worker benefited significantly in his redundancy package by moving to evenings by virtue of the 25% shift differential which was applied to his basic wage as part of his redundancy calculations.
3 It is the Company's view that any alleged stress and worry experienced by the Worker was of his own making.
RECOMMENDATION:
It is clear that in August 2007 the Claimant accepted a redundancy payment in full and final settlement of all claims against the Company. The Claimant also signed a formal discharge agreement acknowledging the finality of the settlement. The claimant entered into the agreement with the benefit of advice from his Trade Union.
The current claim amounts to an attempt to reopen the agreement of August 2007. In the Court's view the agreement was final and cannot be reopened.
In the circumstances the Court does not recommend concession of the Worker's claim.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Duffy
28th November, 2007______________________
DNChairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to David P Noonan, Court Secretary.