FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 13(9), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : BUSINESS MOBILE SECURITY LIMITED T/A SENACA GROUP - AND - A WORKER (REPRESENTED BY SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION) DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Hayes Employer Member: Ms Doyle Worker Member: Mr Shanahan |
1. Appeal of Rights Commissioner Recommendation r-140265-ir-13/MH
BACKGROUND:
2. This case is an appeal by the employer of Rights Commissioner Recommendation r-140265-ir-13/MH.The issue concerns the worker's application for voluntary redundancy which was refused. The worker contends that he had informed management of his intention to apply but that he had not received the required documentation and was out of time by the time he returned to from holidays. Management's position is that the worker was aware of the closing date for applications prior to going on holiday and that when he returned the closing date for applications had passed. Management further contends that the scheme was over subscribed yet all applications that were received in time were facilitated.
The dispute was referred to a Rights Commissioner for investigation. The Rights Commissioner recommended that the employer pay the worker compensation of €9000 in consideration of all matters in relation to the case.
On the 13th October 2014 the employer appealed the Rights Commissioner's Recommendation in accordance with Section 13(9) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 4th December 2014.
MANAGEMENT'S ARGUMENT:
3 1 The worker was aware of the closing date for applications for the voluntary redundancy scheme on offer. The parties were in correspondence on the issue while the worker was on holiday. Unfortunately the worker did not submit his formal written application prior to the closing date. In those circumstances management could not accept the worker's application.
UNION'S ARGUMENT:
4 1 The worker informed the employer of his intention to apply for voluntary redundancy. Subsequently, there was contact between the parties while the worker was on holiday but he did not see the email instructing him to confirm his intention to formally apply for his redundancy until his return from holiday. When he did return he applied as required but this was after the closing date for receipt of applications. The worker is of the view that confirmation of his intention to apply and his previous expression of interest should have been sufficient for him to have been considered for voluntary redundancy.
DECISION:
Having carefully considered the submissions of both parties to this dispute the Court finds that they were both equally responsible for the confusion that surrounded the manner in which this dispute developed. Accordingly the Court takes the view that they should equally share the cost of that confusion.
In that context the Court decides that the €9,000 recommended by the Rights Commissioner should be substituted by the sum of €6934.91 which equates 50% of the redundancy payment the Claimant would have received had he submitted an application for voluntary redundancy within the time limits set by the Company.
The Court so decides.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Brendan Hayes
9th January 2015______________________
AHDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Decision should be addressed to Andrew Heavey, Court Secretary.