FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2004 SECTION 20(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : DATA CONVERSION (SOFTWARE) LIMITED TRADING AS DATA CONVERSION (REPRESENTED BY IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION) - AND - A WORKER (REPRESENTED BY UMTTIE) DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Duffy Employer Member: Mr Murphy Worker Member: Mr O'Neill |
1. Voluntary Redundancy.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Company operates both a Data Management Recruitment Agency and a Data Entry Bureau which moved from a city centre premises to Finglas in July 2006. Staff were offered two choices at a meeting called by Management in November 2005, either to relocate with the Company or to opt for a severance package. The Claimant was not notified nor made aware of this meeting as she was on long term sick leave since May 2002. The Claimant is seeking equal treatment to that of her colleagues, however, the Company terminated her employment after a medical examination found her unfit for office work.
On the 23rd August, 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.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. As an Employee the Claimant ought to have been invited to attend the meeting of November 2005 informing staff of major developments within the Company.
2. Not offering the Claimant a severance package equal to that of her work colleagues is both totally unacceptable and unfair.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. In view of the nature of her illness and the length of absence on long-term sick leave, the Company was not aware she was still "on the books".
2. After undergoing a medical examination the Claimant was deemed unfit for office work. Her contract of employment was terminated on grounds of capability and therefore she does not qualify for redundancy.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court has given careful consideration to the submissions of the parties to this dispute.
There is a doubt as to the Claimant's employment status at the material time and as to her entitlements to statutory redundancy. In that context it can cogently be argued that the Company acted properly in taking the stance which they did. However, having regard to her length of service and her very unfortunate medical condition the Court believes that in all of the circumstances the most reasonable approach is to resolve those doubts in the Claimant's favour.
Accordingly, the Court recommends that the Claimant be paid statutory redundancy in respect of the move to Finglas based on her service up to that time.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Duffy
22nd November, 2007______________________
JFChairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to John Foley, Court Secretary.