FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 20(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : MEDICAL PUBLICATIONS IRELAND - AND - A WORKER (REPRESENTED BY PATRICK F. O' REILLY & CO.) DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Duffy Employer Member: Ms Cryan Worker Member: Ms Ni Mhurchu |
1. Redundancy Terms
BACKGROUND:
2. The case before the Court concerns a claim by the Worker in relation to an enhanced redundancy package.The Worker was employed as a credit control clerk from 1996 until the time she was made redundant in 2010. The Worker's terms and conditions of employment remained unchanged when the Company was taken over in 2000 and again when the Company was acquired by an international media group in 2010. The Worker contends that her Employer refused to discuss or negotiate an enhanced redundancy package, as is standard practice in the sector. The Employer's position is that due to its financial circumstances it is unable to offer anything above the minimum statutory terms of redundancy.
The Worker referred the claim to the Labour Court on the 10th September 2010, in accordance with Section 20(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969 and agreed to be bound by the recommendation of the Court. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 12th January, 2011, the earliest date suitable to the parties.
WORKER'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Worker provided in excess of fourteen years loyal service to the Employer.
2. The Worker contends that the terms of her redundancy were not discussed satisfactorily and there was no appropriate consultation on the issue.
3. The Worker is now seeking six weeks pay per year of service in addition to statutory entitlements and is of the view that this enhanced payment would not place any financial burden on the Employer.
EMPLOYER'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Employer has complied with all legal requirements in issuing the statutory redundancy payment to the Worker.
2. The Employer has operated within industry customs and norms and contends that it is not common practice to offer redundancy packages in excess of statutory entitlements.
3. The Employer maintains that it is not in a financial position to offer an enhanced redundancy package to the Worker.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court is satisfied that in the circumstances of this case an ex-gratia redundancy payment is appropriate and in line with normal practice in employments generally. The Court is further satisfied that a reasonable settlement would be one comprising five weeks pay per year of service inclusive of statutory entitlements.
The Court recommends that the Claimant receive a redundancy lump sum in that amount.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Duffy
14th January 2011______________________
SCChairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Sharon Cahill, Court Secretary.