FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : WOODFAB TIMBER LTD (REPRESENTED BY IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION) - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Duffy Employer Member: Ms Doyle Worker Member: Ms Ni Mhurchu |
1. Redundancy.
BACKGROUND:
2. The case concerns a dispute between the Company and the Union in relation to a claim for enhanced redundancy terms. The Union is seeking enhanced redundancy terms in line with previous Labour Court Recommendation (LCR20174) which provided 3 weeks pay per year of service inclusive of statutory entitlement or the terms of a package previously agreed at the Labour Relations Commission.
The dispute was not resolved at local level and was the subject of a conciliation conference under the auspices of the Labour Relations Commission. As agreement was not reached the matter was referred to the Labour Court on 30th January 2013 in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990.
A Labour Court hearing took place on 11th July 2013.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The worker was previously offered a redundancy package which was less in value to the redundancy terms as outlined in LCR20174. When these terms were sought Management retracted its offer to the worker.
2. The worker was temporarily laid off for almost two yearsand as a result is entitled to seek his redundancy entitlements in line with previous packages.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
2. 1. The workers position remains in the organisation so effectively no redundancy situation exists. As a result the Company do not consider the payment of redundancy to be appropriate.
2.The previous agreement reached at the LRC was specific to the named claimants and was not to be used as a precedent in other claims that arise.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court notes that the matter referred to conciliation concerned the terms of redundancy for the claimant rather than the fact of redundancy. It is further noted that at the time of the referral there was no question of work being available to the Claimant and that he wasde factoredundant.
In all the circumstances the Court recommends that the Claimant be paid one week's pay per year of service plus statutory terms in line with Labour Court Recommendation LCR20174.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Duffy
30th July, 2013.______________________
AH.Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Andrew Heavey, Court Secretary.