FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 20(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : PROVIDENT PERSONAL CREDIT - AND - A WORKER (REPRESENTED BY UNITE) DIVISION : Chairman: Mr McGee Employer Member: Mr Grier Worker Member: Mr Nash |
1. Payment Of Enhanced Redundancy Terms
BACKGROUND:
2. The worker was employed in the Company's regional office in Dublin for over sixteen years. Following the appointment of a new General Manager, the Company made the decision to move its regional office to Wexford. The result of this was that unless the worker was willing to make the move to Wexford her position would become redundant. In May, 2008 the worker became redundant and was paid her statutory entitlement plus an ex-gratia payment. The Union argue that this was a compulsory redundancy which is not a feature of the sector the Company operates in. The Union are seeking for the worker's redundancy to be benchmarked against comparators in the same sector and not the minimum terms applied by the Company.
The Company's position is that it did seek too find suitable alternative employment as it regards redundancy as a mechanism of last resort. The terms of the worker's redundancy were in excess of her Statutory Entitlements.
On the 11th August, 2008 the Union referred the issue to the Labour Court, on accordance with Section 20(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 25th September, 2008
The worker agreed to be bound by the Court's Recommendation.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1 The worker's redundancy was compulsory. No suitable alternative position was available. The Company should have provided a redundancy package benchmarked against best practice in redundancy agreements currently in the sector the Company operates. The Company was made aware of details of a number of these redundancies.
2 The formula for calculating the worker's redundancy should take into account the highly profitable nature of the Company and also the fact that the worker has built considerable collateral in the Company by her diligent efforts.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1 The Company does not agree that it should be benchmarked against all other businesses operating in its sector. The company operates in a specific part of the financial sector and employs around 100 people in Ireland. The company has no knowledge of any enhanced redundancy scheme or practice among its competitors.
2 In light of the current financial climate, the effects of which the Company has not escaped, the redundancy offer made to the worker of Statutory Redundancy plus and ex-gratia payment of €8,000, is fair.
RECOMMENDATION:
Having considered the submissions made by the parties, the Court recommends that the claimant should receive a total severance payment equal to three times her statutory entitlements under the Redundancy Payments Acts. Entitlements under the Minimum Notice legislation are separate to the above.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Raymond McGee
7th October, 2008______________________
DNDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to David P Noonan, Court Secretary.