FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 20(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : S1 IRELAND LTD TRADING AS ACI WORLDWIDE - AND - A GROUP OF WORKERS (REPRESENTED BY AARON MCKENNA SOLICITORS) DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Hayes Employer Member: Mr Murphy Worker Member: Mr Shanahan |
1. Enhanced redundancy payment.
BACKGROUND:
2. The case before the Courtconcerns a dispute between the Company and six Claimants in relation to redundancy terms.
The workers in question were initially employed by S1 Ireland Ltd. and became employed by ACI Worldwide Inc. when it acquired the Company in February 2012. Shortly after, the Claimants were informed that the Company was closing its Dublin office and re-locating to Limerick. The Claimants were offered the options of re-locating to Limerick, commuting to and from Limerick or working from home. As these options were unfortunately not suitable to the Claimants, the Employer offered redundancy terms consisting of statutory entitlements only. The Claimant were subsequently made redundant in May 2012, following the closure of the Dublin office.
The Claimants are currently seeking enhanced redundancy terms, contending that the Company has previously offered redundancy packages consisting of five weeks' pay per year of service, as is established custom and practice.
On the 22nd August, 2012 the Workers referred the issue to the Labour Court, in accordance with Section 20(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 7th December, 2012. The Company did not attend before the Court and was not represented at the hearing.
The Workers agreed to be bound by the Court's Recommendation.
RECOMMENDATION:
It is regrettable that the Employer decided not to attend the hearing or make any submissions to the Court regarding the matters in dispute.
The Court was told that the Company has a history of paying enhanced severance payments to staff that are made redundant. Following a restructuring of its operations in Ireland the Company reduced the size of its workforce and to make a number of workers compulsorily redundant. The Court was told that the Company, on this occasion, paid those workers an enhanced severance payment amounting to three weeks' pay per year of service in addition to their statutory entitlements. This group of workers argued that as their place of employment had closed and the alternatives offered to them were not practical they too were therefore made redundant by the Company. The Company refused to extend enhanced severance payments to this group of workers claiming that they had not been made compulsorily redundant.
Having examined the submission before it the Court finds that the workers in this case were made compulsorily redundant. Accordingly, the Court finds that the Company's decision to withhold the enhanced severance payment from this group of workers is inequitable and without justification.
Accordingly the Court recommends that the Company extend the enhanced redundancy payment that the Court finds equates to three weeks' pay per year of service, in addition to the statutory entitlement, to this group of workers.
The Court so recommends.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Brendan Hayes
21st December 2012______________________
SCDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Sharon Cahill, Court Secretary.