FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 20(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : RICOH IRELAND - AND - A WORKER (REPRESENTED BY SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION) DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Duffy Employer Member: Mr Murphy Worker Member: Mr O'Neill |
1. Redundancy Payment Less Than Agreed Union / Company Agreement
BACKGROUND:
2. The issue before the Court concerns a claim by the Union that previously agreed redundancy terms should apply to its member. The Worker commenced employment with the Company in 2004. The Company commenced a reorganisation process in 2009 which included a review of the worker's position. The outcome of the review was that the worker's role was to be made redundant and that no suitable alternative position was available. It is the Union's claim that the agreement on redundancy payments that was reached between the Company and Union in 2002 should apply to the Worker concerned.
On the 4th November, 2009 the Union referred the issue to the Labour Court, on accordance with Section 20(1) of the Industrial relations Act, 1969. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 5th January, 2010.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1 The Company refused to engage with the Union regarding the redundancy terms for the worker. The redundancy payment in this instance is a shortfall of one week per year of service as per the 2002 agreement.
2 The Company acknowledges and has previously adhered to the agreements regarding redundancies made between the Union and Company in 1993 and 2002.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1 The Worker's redundancy was a consequence of serious economic constraints affecting the business. In such exceptional circumstances the Company was not in a position to offer any enhanced redundancy payments.
2 There is no collective agreement between the Union and company. A redundancy package offered to two employees in 2002 arose from a particular set of circumstances.
RECOMMENDATION:
Having regard to all the circumstances of this case the Court is satisfied that the Union's claim is reasonable and ought to be conceded.
The Court so recommends.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Duffy
9th February, 2010______________________
DNChairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to David P Noonan, Court Secretary.