FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2004 SECTION 13(9), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : SKRETTING (REPRESENTED BY IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION) - AND - A WORKER (REPRESENTED BY SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION) DIVISION : Chairman: Mr McGee Employer Member: Mr Murphy Worker Member: Mr O'Neill |
1. Appeal against Rights Commissioner's Recommendation R-042064-Ir-06/JT.
BACKGROUND:
2. This case concerns an appeal by the Union of Rights Commissioner's Recommendation R-042064-Ir-06/JT. The case concerns a dispute between the parties in relation to
redundancy terms. The Company's position is that the worker was offered a generous package of six weeks pay per year of service as well as additional conributions to VHI
and Union paid to the end of the year. The Union sought additional redundancy terms and sought the continuation of the VHI and Union contributions.
The dispute was referred to the Rights Commissioners service of the Labour Relations Commission for investigation and recommendation. His recommendation issued on the 22nd November, 2006 and did not concede the claim for enhanced redundancy terms on the basis that the Company's offer was in the upper quartile of redundancy settlements in the private sector.
On the 11th December 2006, the Union appealed the Rights Commissioner's Recommendation in accordance with Section 13(9) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969. A Labour Court hearing took place on 27th September, 2007
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3 1 The worker has been employed by the Company since it began trading. He has been an extremely loyal member of staff and is justified in seeking an enhanced redundancy package.
2The Company agreed to continue paying Union contributions for the worker and subsequently changed its position on the issue.
3 The worker sustained an injury at work while in the employment of the Company which may need medical attention into the future. No other proceedings were brought against the Company on this issue. The worker is seeking that his VHI contributions continue to be paid by the Company.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4 1. The Company offered six weeks pay per year of service and to pay VHI and Union contributions until the end of the year. Its offer is extremely generous and should be accepted by the worker.
2. The offer is in line with previous redundancies which occurrred in the Company and is in the upper quartile of redundancy terms applicable in the private sector.
3.Concession of the claim will have serious repercussive effect in the Company into the future.
DECISION:
Having considered the submissions made by the parties, the Court, considering both
- (a) previous precedents in regard to voluntary severance in this Company and,
(b) the manner of the claimant's dismissal for redundancy which, in the view of the Court, fell some way short of best practice in industry,
decides in the particular circumstances of this individual case as follows-:
- - An additional lump sum payment of €10,200 should be paid to the Claimant in full and final resolution of the case.
The Recommendation of the Rights Commissioner is varied accordingly.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Raymond McGee
16th October, 2007______________________
AH.Deputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Decision should be addressed to Andrew Heavey, Court Secretary.