FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2004 SECTION 20(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : FULFLEX INTERNATIONAL (REPRESENTED BY IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION) - AND - A WORKER (REPRESENTED BY SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION) DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Duffy Employer Member: Mr Doherty Worker Member: Mr O'Neill |
1. Alleged non payment of agreed Redundancy Package.
BACKGROUND:
2. In April, 2006, the Company announced the closure of its Limerick production to take effect from 5th of May, 2006, resulting in the loss of 108 jobs. The Union's claim is for the payment of an ex-gratia payment to the worker in question. The Company's case is that worker's effective retirement date was the 25th May, 2006, preceding the expiry of his normal statutory notice period (8 weeks) which would have come into effect on the 30th of June, 2006. He received payment in lieu of notice up to the 25th May, 2006, of €2,098.98 together with full statutory redundancy of €37,044.
The Union referred the case to the Labour Court on the 13th of July, 2006, in accordance with Section 20(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 26th of September, 2007, in Limerick, the earliest date suitable to the parties. The worker agreed to be bound by the Court's recommendation.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Union agreed to the terms of the redundancy settlement on the basis that it would apply to all of its members. There was no indication from the Company that there would be an exception to the agreement.
2. The worker was told that the Company would "sort him out" and he believed that he would receive that same deal as the other workers.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Company could have kept the worker on in employment until his retirement on the 25th of May, 2006, in which case he would have reached his normal retirement date and not received any redundancy payment.
2.On the 3rd of May, 2006, the worker met with management and, in the presence of the Union Chairman, agreed to hold direct talks with the Company to sort out a deal regarding a redundancy package. It was very clear to the worker what was on offer when he accepted the deal.
RECOMMENDATION:
It appears to the Court that the parties were at cross purposes in their negotiations in relation to the Claimant's position. In these circumstances the Court can only have regard to what would be normally considered a fair and reasonable settlement in the case of an employee nearing retirement.
The Court is satisfied that the terms provided to the Claimant were reasonable having regard to normal practice in similar circumstances.
Accordingly, the Court does not recommend concession of the Union's claim.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Duffy
11th October, 2007______________________
CON.Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Ciaran O'Neill, Court Secretary.