FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 13(9), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : LUND PRECISION PRODUCTS LIMITED (REPRESENTED BY IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION) - AND - A WORKER (REPRESENTED BY SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION) DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Hayes Employer Member: Mr Murphy Worker Member: Mr Shanahan |
1. Appeal of Recommendation of a Rights Commissioner r-092226-ir-10/JW.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Company was established in Athlone in 1981 and provides innovative solutions to challenging cutting, wear and corrosion-related problems for original equipment manufacturers. At its peak in 1990, the Company employed 102 people. Since 1998 when they employed 82 people, it has steadily declined to its current workforce of 45 employees. This drop in headcount comprised redundancies as well as roles not being backfilled.
The Claimant commenced employment with the Company in July 1982 in the role of Operator. On the 16th September 1998, he was appointed as a Production Department Manager however, during the Summer of 2009 a restructuring / rationalisation process resulted in his post becoming redundant.
The issue involves a claim by a Worker. The matter was referred to a Rights Commissioner for investigation and recommendation. On the 6th January, 2011, the Rights Commissioner issued his Recommendation as follows:-
"In the particular circumstances of this case, I find that the complaint is not well founded. The claimant's role of department manager was made redundant and he was fairly selected for redundancy on the basis of last-in-first-out. He accepted the alternative position offered by the Company".
On the 1st February, 2011 the Worker appealed the Rights Commissioners Recommendation to the Labour Court in accordance with Section 13(9) of the Industrial Relations Act 1969. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 10th June 2011.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Claimant has worked 28 years for the Company, 11 of those years as Foreman. He therefore had a legitimate expectation that the next 19 years would also be at the grade of Foreman.
2. Due to the financial hardship which the reduction in income has caused, the Union is seeking compensating twice his annual loss of earnings.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Claimant's role was made redundant after the restructuring and as an alternative to redundancy, he freely opted for an Operator's role knowing fully the terms and conditions attached to that role.
2. This was an unconditional acceptance by the Claimant alone of the alternative role which he knew would incur a loss of earnings.
DECISION:
Having carefully considered the extensive oral and written submissions from both parties involved, including the extensive supplementary submissions, the Court, in all the circumstances of this case, recommends that the Company increases its offer of compensation for loss of earnings from €13,860 to €22,500 to be paid in two equal phases on 1st August, 2011 and 1st February, 2012 respectively, in full and final settlement of this dispute.
The Court so recommends.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Brendan Hayes
12th July, 2011______________________
JFDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Decision should be addressed to John Foley, Court Secretary.