FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 20(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : DARKE ENTERTAINMENTS LIMITED TRADING AS PENNY HILL LICENSED PREMISES - AND - A WORKER (REPRESENTED BY MANDATE) DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Hayes Employer Member: Mr Murphy Worker Member: Mr Nash |
1. Unfair dismissal
BACKGROUND:
2. The Company is part of the Fitzgerald Group and the worker has been part of the Group for the last 17 years. His background to his case is as follows: on 8th April, 2009, he was asked to attend a meeting at Palmerstown Head Office. At the meeting he was told that he was to be made redundant due to a downturn in business. He offered to take a pay cut in order to keep his job but this was not acceptable to the Company. He was presented with forms to sign - an RP50 form, and an RP6 form stating that he wished to terminate his employment which he reluctantly signed. He was also given his P45 and was paid his statutory entitlements. Errors in commencement date and consequent calculations were subsequently corrected.
The worker referred his case for unfair dismissal to the Labour Court on the 14th September, 2009, in accordance with Section 20(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 15th April, 2010. The worker agreed to be bound by the Court's recommendation.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The worker was an Assistant Manager and his duties were the same as the other Assistant Manager employed by the Company. This second manager had considerably less service than the worker.
2. The worker offered to take a voluntary wage cut in order to keep his job. There were other vacancies within the Company but the worker was not informed of this. A new member of staff was hired within two weeks of the worker's dismissal.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Company has had to economise due to a general downturn in business and a drop in sales. The worker was employed as a 2nd Assistant Manager and the Company could not afford to sustain two assistant managers. It was decided to reorganise the worker's duties and divide them amongst other staff .
2. The worker's position is still redundant and there are no plans to fill the position in the future.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court has carefully considered the submissions of both parties in the case. There appear to have been flaws in the processes and procedures employed in this case. Taking all of the circumstances of this case into account, the Court recommends, on an exceptional basis, that the claimant be paid an enhanced ex-gratia redundancy payment of two weeks' pay per year of service in addition to his statutory entitlements in full and final settlement of all claims against Company.
The Court so recommends.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Brendan Hayes
5th May, 2010______________________
CONDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Ciaran O'Neill, Court Secretary.