FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 20(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : FOCUS IRELAND (REPRESENTED BY IBEC) - AND - A WORKER (REPRESENTED BY IRISH MUNICIPAL, PUBLIC AND CIVIL TRADE UNION) DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Hayes Employer Member: Ms Cryan Worker Member: Mr McCarthy |
1. Enhanced Redundancy.
BACKGROUND:
2. The case before the Court concerns the Worker's claim for enhanced redundancy terms. The Worker was made redundant in August 2013 and was offered a redundancy package comprising an ex-gratia payment of one week's pay per year of service in addition to her statutory entitlements. The Worker refused to accept the package and sought enhanced terms similar to those agreed and paid to her colleagues based in an alternative location. The Worker was paid statutory entitlements only. The Employer rejects the Worker's claim for increased redundancy terms arguing that it is not in a position to fund an enhanced package over and above what was originally offered to the Worker.
On the 12th December, 2013 the Union on behalf of its member 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 8th April, 2014.
The Worker agreed to be bound by the Court’s Recommendation.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Worker was made redundant as a result of restructuring within the Organisation. Similar restructuring was carried out in an alternative location with workers receiving a greater redundancy package than was offered to the Worker in this case.
2. The Worker is seeking enhanced redundancy terms in line with what was offered to her colleagues who were employed in a similar Focus Ireland service.
3. The Union contends that the Employer is in a position to fund enhanced terms and should do so accordingly.
EMPLOYER'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Worker refused to accept a package that has been offered and paid to colleagues previously.
2. The package offered to the Worker represents the Organisation norm and is offered to Workers nationally.
3. The Employer is not in a financial position to offer enhanced redundancy terms.
RECOMMENDATION:
Having carefully considered the submissions of both parties to this dispute the Court, in the particular circumstances of this case, finds merit in the Union's claim to have the severance terms offered to the Claimant increased to two week's pay per year of service in addition to the statutory entitlement.
The Court decides accordingly.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Brendan Hayes
28th April 2014______________________
SCDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Sharon Cahill, Court Secretary.