FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 13(9), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : AERO-CLEAN IRELAND LIMITED (REPRESENTED BY JAMES P EVANS SOLICITORS) - AND - A WORKER (REPRESENTED BY SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION) DIVISION : Chairman: Ms Jenkinson Employer Member: Mr Murphy Worker Member: Mr Shanahan |
1. Appeal of Rights Commissioner's Recommendation R-094546-IR-10.
BACKGROUND:
2. The case before the Court concerns the Employer's appeal of a Rights Commissioner's RecommendationR-094546-IR-10. The dispute relates specifically to the Worker's claim for enhanced redundancy terms. The Worker was previously employed as a part-time Cleaning Operative for a period of over two years until she faced compulsory redundancy in 2010, receiving a redundancy package consisting of statutory entitlements only. The Worker is currently seeking an enhanced redundancy payment. The Employer rejects the Worker's claim contending that it is not in a position to offer anything above statutory entitlements. Furthermore, the Employer maintains that the Worker was one amongst a number of employees who faced redundancy and all of whom received statutory entitlements only. The matter was referred to a Rights Commissioner for investigation and recommendation.
On the 10th March, 2011, the Rights Commissioner issued his Recommendation as follows:
"Based on the uncontested evidence adduced at the hearing I recommend that an enhanced redundancy package of two weeks pay per year of service plus statutory payment be conceded in all the circumstances of this particular case".
On the 14th April, 2011 the Employer 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 30th May, 2012.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Employer previously gave an undertaking to negotiate an enhanced redundancy package, however, it ultimately failed to do so.
2. While the Union acknowledges that there is no industry norm in relation to redundancy terms, it is of the view that competitor companies have previously offered enhanced redundancy settlements.
3. The Union contends that concession of this claim would not place any financial burden on the Employer.
EMPLOYER'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Employer experienced significant financial difficulties as a result of the loss of major contracts and has since ceased operating in Ireland.
2. The Employer is not in a financial position to fund an enhanced redundancy payment in this instance.
3. The Worker was treated in a fair and consistent matter as she was part of a group of employees who faced redundancy and who received statutory entitlements only.
DECISION:
This is an appeal byAero-Clean Ireland Limitedof a Rights Commissioner’s Recommendation which found in favour of the Claimant’s claim for an ex-gratia redundancy payment and recommended two weeks' pay per year of service in addition to the statutory redundancy payment. The Union on behalf of the Claimant had initially also lodged an appeal, however, this was withdrawn at the commencement of the appeal hearing.
The Employer did not attend the hearing before the Rights Commissioner.
Mr Ger Kennedy, SIPTU, on behalf of the Claimant, stated that the Claimant was made redundant on 15thMarch 2010 and sought an ex-gratia redundancy payment as recommended by the Rights Commissioner.
Mr James Evans, Solicitor, James P. Evans, Solicitors, on behalf of the Employer stated that the Employer was not in a position to offer any redundancy package. He stated that the Employer experienced a significant downturn in its business in January 2010 and ceased trading in 2012.
Having considered all aspects of the Employer's appeal of the Rights Commissioner's Recommendation, the Court concurs with the findings and recommendation of the Rights Commissioner and upholds his Recommendation. Therefore the Court decides that the Employer should pay the Claimant an ex-gratia redundancy payment of two weeks’ pay per year of service in addition to the statutory redundancy payment already paid within six weeks of the date of this Decision. The appeal fails.
The Court so Decides.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Caroline Jenkinson
27th June 2012______________________
SCDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Decision should be addressed to Sharon Cahill, Court Secretary.