FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 20(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : STRIPES SUPPORT SERVICES LIMITED TRADING AS KAMMAC SUPPORT SERVICES - AND - A WORKER (REPRESENTED BY SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION) DIVISION : Chairman: Ms Jenkinson Employer Member: Mr Doherty Worker Member: Mr O'Neill |
1. Redundancy
BACKGROUND:
2. This case concerns a dispute between the Company and Union in relation to access to Redundancy. The Company provides on-site logistics and brewery support services to Diageo at St James' Gate. The issue in dispute relates to the Union's claim that the worker was not notified of or selected for voluntary redundancy.
It contends that the worker had initially expressed an interest in the redundancy but due to his absence on sick leave, was not notified of the application requirements or closing date of the scheme.
Managements position is that it posted up all relevant notification in relation to applications for the redundancy package and that there was adequate time for the worker to be informed of and to apply for the scheme, despite his absence on leave.
On 16th March, 2007 the worker referred the matter to the Labour Court in accordance with Section 20(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969 and agreed to be bound by the Court's Recommendation. A Labour Court hearing took place on 19th August, 2008 the earliest date suitable to the parties.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3 1 The worker was absent on sick leave during the period when applications were sought for the voluntary redundancies. Management had a duty to inform him of the details of the scheme, which they failed to do.
2 The worker had previously made representations to Management that he was interested in availing of voluntary redundancy. It is unacceptable that he was subsequently excluded from the Scheme.
3 The Union's claim to have the same redundancy package applied to the worker is fair and reasonable in the circumstances.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4 1 There had been many representations made to management prior to final agreement being reached on the details of the scheme. These representations do not constitute an application. All applications were requested in writing, by a specific date in line with the agreements reached.
2 Management do not accept the Union's assertions that it should have notified the worker of the scheme and the applications being sought. All details of the scheme were posted up in the Company and the worker could have been notified by fellow colleagues, Shop Stewards or indeed by making enquiries as to the up to date position with the package.
3He had no personal entitlement to be selected and no timely application was received from him. He was well aware that negotiations were taking place in relation to the Scheme.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Union submitted a claim before the Court for the application of the Company’s Voluntary Redundancy package to the claimant, whom it contended had been excluded from the deal completed in September 2006.
Having examined the submissions and the application process, the Court is satisfied that while the claimant made his expression of interest in the Voluntary package known to his manager, he did not take up the opportunity to apply for the package and did not complete the application process in accordance with the offer.
Accordingly, the Court does not find in support of the Union’s claim.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Caroline Jenkinson
23rd October 2008______________________
AHDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Andrew Heavey, Court Secretary.