FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 20(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : AER LINGUS - AND - GYORGY KOVACS (REPRESENTED BY SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL & TECHNICAL UNION) DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Duffy Employer Member: Ms Doyle Worker Member: Mr O'Neill |
1. Unfair treatment in relation to severance package
BACKGROUND:
2. The Claimant was employed along with four others on a number of fixed term contracts from 25th June, 2007. The Company introduced a Voluntary Severance programme in 2008 one of six similar programmes in the past decade and on each occasion the terms and conditions regarding eligibility were announced. One of the criteria on this occasion was that to qualify for the Severance Pay, a Worker must have at least 18 months continuous service before 15th December 2008 thus leaving the Claimant and his four colleagues 10 days short.
However when one of these colleagues was offered and accepted the package, the Claimant felt it appropriate to seek parity of treatment and when this was refused by Management several attempts were made both locally and at the LRC to resolved the matter.
On the 28th April, 2010 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 22nd July, 2010.
The Union agreed to be bound by the Court’s Recommendation.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Claimant should not be treated any differently or less favourable than that of his colleague and he should not be further victimised by Management's refusal to re-hire, him which is in breach of the November 2008 agreement.
2. The Claimant should be adequately compensated for the unfair treatment he suffered and be allowed to return to work
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. It is a fact that the Claimant's comparator was granted a severance deal under the November 2008 agreement, but this was as a result of an administrative error and there was no intention to discriminate against the Claimant.
2. This was an expensive mistake on behalf of Management and it should not be compounded further by granting severance pay to other employees with the same date of entry as the Claimant.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court is satisfied that the payment made to the Claimant's colleague arose from a genuine error. While the Court can well understand the disappointment felt by the Claimant, the Company cannot reasonably be expected to compound the error.
The Claimant received the redundancy payment to which he was entitled and in these circumstances the Court cannot identify any basis upon which it could recommend concession of his claim.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Duffy
4th August, 2010______________________
JFChairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to John Foley, Court Secretary.