FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 13(9), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : IARNROD EIREANN - AND - A WORKER (REPRESENTED BY SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION) DIVISION : Chairman: Ms Jenkinson Employer Member: Ms Cryan Worker Member: Mr Nash |
1. Appeal of Recommendation Rights Commissioner Recommendation No: r-068611-ir-08-MH
BACKGROUND:
2. This case concerns an appeal by the employer of Rights Commissioner Recommendation No: r-068611-ir-08-MH. The issue concerns a worker who received a voluntary redudancy calculation from the Company prior to availing of the Scheme yet on cessation of employment received €8,850.00 less than had been originally calculated.
The matter was referred to a Rights Commissioner for investigation. His Recommendation issued on 9th April, 2009 and found that in all the circumstances of the case, the worker should receive the original redundancy offer.
On the 18th April 2009, the employer appealed the Rights Commissioner's Recommendation in accordance with Section 13(9) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969. A Labour Court hearing took place on 28th October, 2010.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3 1 The worker received a redundancy offer from the Company. When he chose to avail of the Scheme he received less than had been originally offered. In the circumstances management should have informed the worker of any maerial changes in his personal circumstances that affected the value of the package.
MANAGEMENT'S ARGUMENTS:
4 1 The worker received a redundancy estimate only. There were several packages on offer which changed depending on peoples personal circumstances at the time of redundancy. When the worker availed of the offer his circumstances had changedsignificantly which was refleted the actual package he received.
DECISION:
The matter before the Court concerns an appeal by the Company of a Rights Commissioner’s recommendation, which found in favour of the worker’s claim that his redundancy payment had been incorrectly calculated.
The Company held that there were two separate agreed formulae for the calculation of voluntary redundancy payments in respect of Gatekeepers, being made redundant on the automation of the railway crossings. One formula applied to those under 65 years and a separate formula applied to those aged 65 to 70 years. As the claimant was over aged 65 when he was made redundant the latter formula should apply.
The Union on behalf of the claimant submitted that he had been supplied with details of the value of the package prior to reaching his 65th birthday and consequently should have been paid that amount on being made redundant.
The Company contested this view stating that the details were clearly signaled as being an estimate only and that the final package was dependent on the date of automation at the appropriate railway crossing. In this case estimates were supplied on 15th April and 18th May 2007, whereas his railway crossing gates were not automated until 31st July 2008, at which stage he was made redundant.
Having considered the submissions of both sides the Court is satisfied that the voluntary redundancy packages provided for different calculations dependent on the employee’s age on being made redundant due to the automation of the railway crossings. Accordingly, as the Claimant was over 65 when his gate became fully automated his employment was terminated due to his acceptance of voluntary redundancy. In such circumstances the Court is satisfied that he was paid the appropriate package applicable to him, which included an ex-gratia payment and termination bonus. Therefore, the Court is satisfied that there are no further monies due to him.
For the reasons outlined above the Court overturns the Rights Commissioner’s Recommendation and upholds the Employer’s appeal.
The Court so decides.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Caroline Jenkinson
18th November 2010______________________
AHDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Decision should be addressed to Andrew Heavey, Court Secretary.