FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : HOCHTIEF FACILITY MANAGEMENT (REPRESENTED BY HOCHTIEF FACILITY MANAGEMENT) - AND - TECHNICAL, ENGINEERING AND ELECTRICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Ms Jenkinson Employer Member: Mr Doherty Worker Member: Mr O'Neill |
1. Redundancy
BACKGROUND:
2. This dispute concerns a claim by the Union that the Company made the Worker redundant and replaced her with another person at a substantially lower salary. The Union claims that the Worker was unfairly selected for redundancy because of a complaint she made against a senior manager.
This dispute could not be resolved at local level and was the subject of a Conciliation Conference under the auspices of the Labour Relations Commission. As agreement was not reached, the dispute was referred to the Labour Court on the 14th October 2008, in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 29th October 2008, the earliest date suitable to the parties.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Company failed properly to deal with the complaint the Worker made against a senior manager.
2. In making the Worker redundant and replacing her with another person at a substantially lower salary, the Company is joining in the 'Race to the bottom', where workers' pay, terms and conditions are concerned.
3.On previous occasions the Company offered a more generous voluntary redundancy payment than the statutory redundancy payment offered to the Worker in this compulsory redundancy situation.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. Considerable financial losses since 2007 required the Company to cut costs. The Worker was made redundant following the restructuring of her section.
2. The Worker declined alternative employment in the Company.
3.The decision to make the Worker redundant had nothing to do with a complaint she made against another member of staff.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court has considered the oral and written submissions and notes that due to its economic difficulties, the Company was in the process of reducing its employee numbers. However, the Court is satisfied the termination of the claimant’s employment in the circumstances which prevailed gave rise to an unfair selection for redundancy accordingly, the Court recommends that she should be paid compensation.
The Court recommends that the claimant should be paid €20,000 in full and final settlement of her claim with the Company.
The Court so recommends.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Caroline Jenkinson
13th November, 2008______________________
JMcCDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Jonathan McCabe, Court Secretary.