FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 20(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : SODEXHO IRELAND LTD (REPRESENTED BY IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION) - AND - A WORKER (REPRESENTED BY SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION) DIVISION : Chairman: Ms Jenkinson Employer Member: Mr Murphy Worker Member: Ms Ni Mhurchu |
1. Redundancy Terms
BACKGROUND:
2. The issue before the Court concerns a claim by the Union on behalf of its member for an enhanced redundancy package. The Worker was employed by the Company to work at a client company, APC in Castlebar, Co Mayo. In early 2010 APC announced it was to close with the effect that the worker concerned would be made redundant. The Worker was offered a redundancy package of 2 weeks pay per year of service plus her statutory entitlements. The Worker became aware of the fact that employees of the client company were receiving a more beneficial redundancy package of 4 weeks pay per year of service plus statutory entitlements. The Worker sought this deal from the Company. The Company's position is that the redundancy package offered to the Worker is the same as that paid to workers at its other client sites since February 2009.
The Union referred the case to the Labour Court on the 14th March, 2011, in accordance with Section 20(1) of the Industrial Relations act, 1969. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 22nd November, 2011.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1 The Company has in recent times paid redundancy packages in line with that being paid by the client company. One such case is the downsizing of Allergan Pharmaceuticals in 2005, when employees of the Company received the same package as their counterparts in the client company.
2 The Worker is seeking to achieve the benefit of the same redundancy package as that paid to those with whom she worked closely with for almost 10 years.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1 The Worker recieved what has been the precedent for the Company with regards to redundancy packages since February 2009.
2 There are no funds available to further enhanced the redundancy package offered to the Worker. As the client company is now closed there is no way for the Company to recoup any further costs from the client.
RECOMMENDATION:
The matter before the Court concerns a claim by the Union on behalf of the Claimant who had been made redundant by the Company, based at the APC plant in Castlebar, Co. Mayo, for an enhanced ex-gratia redundancy package.
The Claimant was offered two weeks’ pay per year of service plus statutory redundancy and she sought six weeks’ pay per year of service inclusive of statutory redundancy in line with that paid to employees made redundant in the APC plant itself.
The Company stated to the Court that it has paid two weeks’ pay per year of service plus statutory redundancy in all circumstances and in its various different sites since February 2009.
Having considered the submissions of both parties the Court sees no reason to depart from the normal redundancy ex-gratia package in place within the Company since 2009 and accordingly rejects the claim.
The Court so recommends.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Caroline Jenkinson
8th December, 2011______________________
DNDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to David P Noonan, Court Secretary.