FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 13(9), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : ENTERPRISE IRELAND - AND - TWO CLAIMANTS (REPRESENTED BY UNITE) DIVISION : Chairman: Mr McGee Employer Member: Mr Murphy Worker Member: Ms Ni Mhurchu |
1. Appeal of Rights Commissioner's Recommendations r-069582-ir-08 and r-069684-ir-08
BACKGROUND:
2. In 2006 Enterprise Ireland launched a Voluntary Leaving Programme (VLP) with an exit date of 31st December, 2006. The two Claimants claim that they were misled and misinformed by Management regarding any future VLP at the time of their retirement in 2005.
The issue involves a claim by the Union. The matter was referred to a Rights Commissioner for investigation and recommendation. On the 6th February, 2009, the Rights Commissioner issued his Recommendation as follows:
" I find that I have no jurisdiction to hear the complaints - and I share the views of the Labour Court expressed in LCR16970..."
On the 13th March, 2009 the Union appealed the Rights Commissioner's Recommendation to the Labour Court in accordance with Section 13(9) of the Industrial Relations Act 1969. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 21st May, 2009.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. Both cases involve issues that had arisen during the time of their employment but only became evident following their retirement.
2 Management's failure to provide details to the two Workers of the on-going discussions on the Voluntary Leaving Programme was wrong.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The substantive issue is that of the jurisdiction of the Court to hear the original claims of the former Employees, especially when the Attorney General's advice is taken into consideration.
2. The Court has already acknowledged the limitations of its jurisdiction in LCR16970 and LCR19310.
DECISION:
The Court must in this case deal with the question of accepting jurisdiction. When the matter was referred to the Rights Commissioner he declined jurisdiction on the basis of LCR 16970 “Forfás v A Worker”.
In this Recommendation, the Court stated that it had been advised by the Attorney General that it was “entitled to investigate a matter which arose prior to an individual’s retirement and which was referred to the Labour Relations Commission or the Labour Court prior to the individual's retirement”. The Court accepted this advice. The Claimants retired in June and August of 2005 respectively and this case was referred to the Rights Commissioner Service in late 2008.
Further cases have confirmed this view, most recently those of “University College Dublin v A Worker”(LCR 19310), “University College Dublin v A Worker”(LCR 19422), “An Gaisce v A Named Claimant”(LCR 19435) and “ESB v A Worker” (LCR 19447).
The Court must, accordingly, decline jurisdiction in the matter and so decides.
The Court would again advert to the unsatisfactory nature of situations such as this one, and would again endorse the sentiments expressed in LCR 16970 regarding avenues of redress for people in this position. Representative parties to disputes such as this one have the continuing option of attempting to resolve their dispute through dialogue and negotiation.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Raymond McGee
9th June, 2009______________________
JFDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Decision should be addressed to John Foley, Court Secretary.