FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 13(9), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : DOYLES COLLECTION LTD T/A WESTBURY HOTEL (REPRESENTED BY IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION) - AND - A WORKER (REPRESENTED BY SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION) DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Duffy Employer Member: Ms Doyle Worker Member: Ms Tanham |
1. Appeal of Recommendation of a Rights Commissioner r-124103-12/JT.
BACKGROUND:
2. This dispute arose when the Claimant was informed he was not entitled to apply for a voluntary redundancy package due to his long term sick leave. This matter was referred to a Rights Commissioner for investigation and recommendation. On the 9th November, 2012 the Rights Commissioner issued the following Recommendation:-
- “I have considered the submissions of both parties. As with all voluntary redundancy packages, they are exactly that; voluntary on all sides. It is management prerogative to accept or decline an application. I therefore do not find the claim well founded and it fails”.
On the 3rd December 2012 the Claimant appealed the Rights Commissioner's 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 19th February 2013.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Claimant commenced employment with the Employer in 1989 and is currently out sick recovering from a serious illness.
2. The Claimant attended a meeting in August 2011 with the HR Manager. Following this meeting it was his understanding that staff out on long term sick leave could apply for the redundancy package.
3.At a meeting in November 2011, the Claimant was told there were no funds left to pay a redundancy package.
COMPANIES ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Company has come under serious financial difficulties and was required to make a number of cost savings. A Labour Court Recommendation No 20107 was issued following a hearing which the Company and Union attended.
2. It was jointly agreed by Management and the Union, not to offer employees on long term sick leave the option to submit an expression of interest for voluntary redundancy.
3. The Claimant’s role in the Company is being covered by other staff and is available for the Claimant to return to when he is deemed fit to do so.
DECISION:
While the Court has some sympathy for the circumstances in which the Claimant finds himself it cannot ignore the fact that the Company acted in accordance with the collective agreement concluded with the Union in not inviting those on long term sick leave to apply for voluntary redundancy. Furthermore having regard to the voluntary nature of the redundancy programme the Company had discretion to accept or not to accept any application.
The Court notes that the Claimant’s position remains open to him when he is medically fit to resume work. It is also noted that when the Claimant resumes work the compensation terms provided for in Recommendation LCR20107 are available to him. As there appears to be some confusion concerning the terms and conditions which will be applicable to the Claimant on his return to work, this matter should be clarified between the parties.
For these reasons the Court cannot see any basis upon which it could interfere with the recommendation of the Rights Commissioner. The Court therefore affirms the recommendation of the Rights Commissioner and disallows the appeal.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Duffy
CR______________________
28th February, 2013Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Decision should be addressed to Ciaran Roche, Court Secretary.