FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 20(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : CLEARY DOYLE CONTRACTING LIMITED - AND - A WORKER (REPRESENTED BY SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION) DIVISION : Chairman: Ms Jenkinson Employer Member: Mr Doherty Worker Member: Ms Ni Mhurchu |
1. Non-Payment of agreed Enhanced Redundancy Terms
BACKGROUND:
2. The issue before the Court concerns a claim by the Union on behalf of the Worker for an enhanced redundancy package. In October, 2008 the Worker was informed by the Company that her position was to be made redundant and that she would receive statutory redundancy terms. It is the Union's argument that the Worker should receive the same enhanced redundancy terms as were applied to a number of employees made redundant in February, 2008. The Company contends that the employees made redundant in February, 2008 were General Operatives while the Worker concerned is considered Office Staff and that the same redundancy terms should not be applied to both. An offer of an additional €5,000 on top of statutory redundancy was offered by the Company. The Worker believes she should be treated the same as her work colleagues and should receive the agreed enhanced terms.
On the 8th May, 2009 the Worker referred the issue to the Labour Court, in accordance with Section 20(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969. The Union agreed to be bound by the Court’s Recommendation. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 10th November, 2009.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1 The Union disputes the claim made by the company that the enhanced redundancy terms only apply to site workers and not to office based staff. It is the Union's understanding that other office based staff have received an enhanced package.
2 The Union acknowledges the difficulties the Company may be experiencing because of the economic downturn but it cannot accept that one employee can be treated less favourably than her colleagues.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1 Nothing in the Worker's contract of employment entitles her to an ex gratia payment in the event of being made redundant. She was offered an ex gratia payment in recognition of her service to the company. The Company fully complied with the requirements of the Redundancy Payments Acts.
2 General Operatives were employed to work on construction sites. These workers were not afforded the same security of employment as office staff and are covered by the Construction Industry REA. For these reasons office staff are regarded as a different category of workers to general operatives.
RECOMMENDATION:
The matter before the Court concerns a claim by the Union on behalf of one worker, employed as Plant Manager/Quality Assurance Manager for application of the same redundancy terms as applied to construction operatives in a settlement reached with the Union in February 2008.
Having considered the submissions made by both parties, the Court finds that the circumstances outlined in this case warrant payment of the same terms as agreed with the Union for construction operatives in February 2008, i.e. double the statutory redundancy terms.
Accordingly, the Court recommends concession of the Union’s claim.
The Court so recommends.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Caroline Jenkinson
27th November, 2008______________________
DNDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to David P Noonan, Court Secretary.