FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 20(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : WINDMILL LANE PICTURES LTD - AND - MR ALAN SULLIVAN (REPRESENTED BY MR JOHN SULLIVAN) DIVISION : Chairman: Ms Jenkinson Employer Member: Ms Doyle Worker Member: Ms Ni Mhurchu |
1. Dismissal without fair procedure or adequate compensation
BACKGROUND:
2. This dispute, which concerns a claim for enhanced redundancy payment, arises from the Workers redundancy in March 2012. The Worker referred his case to the Labour Court on 11th May, 2012 in accordance with Section 20(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969 and agreed to be bound by the Court's Recommendation. A Labour Court hearing took place on 30th August, 2012.
3.WORKERS ARGUMENTS:
- The Claimant worked for the Company for twenty years and at the time of redundancy in the post of Senior On-Line Editor. On the 18th January, 2012 he and a colleague were told of a possible redundancy within their Department. On the 23rd January, 2012 both were told there was not enough work for them and that one of them would be made redundant. On Friday, 27th January, 2012 he was made redundant.
- In the financial year from 2008/2009 the Company's market share dropped by over 25%. The Company was forced to make nine staff redundant and this was the first time in thirty years that this has happened. Cash flow is on a month to month basis and the Company is predicting a financial loss this year. A matrix was created to decide which staff members were to be made redundant and length of service was included in the matrix. The Claimant was given statutory redundancy and was offered a good reference
RECOMMENDATION:
The Claimant was made redundant in March 2012, he submitted a claim under Section 20(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969 for an enhanced redundancy payment. The Company told the Court following the sudden drop of it’s market in the financial year 2008/2009 it was forced to implement a series of cost-cutting measures, including making a number of staff redundant; implementing pay-cuts across the board; ceasing contributions to the pension scheme; and non-payment of bonus payments. Since then due to further loss of contracts, in order to maintain the company as a viable business and retain the employment of the remaining workforce, the Company had no alternative but to make the Claimant and some other employees redundant in 2012.
Having considered the oral and written submissions of both parties, the Court accepts that the current financial circumstances of the Company are as described in its submission to the Court. However, the Court is of the view that in consideration of the Claimant’s significant length of service of recommends, the Court recommends that the Company should pay the Claimant an ex-gratia payment of €8000 in full and final settlement of the claim before the Court. Furthermore, the Court recommends that in the event of work becoming available in the future which may be allocated to the Claimant on a freelance basis, the Company should give serious consideration to assigning such work to the Claimant.
The Court so recommends.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Caroline Jenkinson
CR______________________
1st October 2012Deputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Ciaran Roche, Court Secretary.