FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 20(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : O' CALLAGHAN'S BUTCHERS - AND - A WORKER (REPRESENTED BY SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION) DIVISION : Chairman: Mr McGee Employer Member: Mr Doherty Worker Member: Mr Nash |
1. Seeking Enhanced Redundancy
BACKGROUND:
2. The issue before the Court concerns a claim by the Union for an enhanced redundancy package for its member. The worker concerned has been an employee of the Company since 1985. During his 23 years of employment he had worked his way up to the grade of butcher/manager. In March 2008 the worker was informed by management that he was being made redundant and that he would be paid statutory redundancy for his 23 years service. It is the Union's claim that he was not offered the right to representation. The Union are seeking an enhanced redundancy package of 3 weeks per year of service for their member. The Company's position is that the proper procedures were carried in line with legislation.
On the 19th August, 2008 the Union referred the issue to the Labour Court in accordance with Section 20(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 9th December, 2008.
The Union agreed to be bound by the Court's Recommendation.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1 The worker was employed for 23 years as a butcher/manager. There was another butcher with less service employed at the Company at the time of the compulsory redundancy. The Company did not give the worker the option to continue working as a butcher only.
2 The Company advertised for experienced butchers in May 2008 in two local newspapers. The Union wrote to the Company and requested that the worker be reinstated as it believed that one of the positions advertised was indeed that of its member.
3 Management at the Company has been uncooperative in assisting the worker to gain benefits from insurance policies, personal loans and car finance as he refused to sign and stamp documents which would enable him to claim payment protection on these loans.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1 The Company carried out all that was required of them under legislation.
2 The Company is not aware of any situation where more than statutory redundancy is required to be paid by law. There is no grounds for an enhanced redundancy package.
3 At the time of the worker's redundancy, the Company was in severe financial trouble, as is evident from the accounts. Management made the decision to pay the worker statutory redundancy even though he could have pleaded that he was unable
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court has considered the oral and written submissions put to it in this case. The Court is unhappy about the lack of proper procedures, consultation and representation offered to the claimant at the time of his compulsory redundancy.
In addition, the norm in industrial relations in this country is to pay an ex-gratia amount in addition to statutory redundancy compensation. This is especially true in cases of compulsory redundancy.
The Court awards the worker an ex-gratia severance payment of €25,000 in addition to his statutory entitlements. The Court so recommends
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Raymond McGee
9th February, 2009______________________
DNDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to David P Noonan, Court Secretary.