FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 13(9), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : AN POST - AND - A WORKER (REPRESENTED BY INDEPENDENT WORKERS' UNION) DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Hayes Employer Member: Mr Murphy Worker Member: Mr McCarthy |
1. An appeal of a Rights Commissioner's Recommendation r-145569-ir-14/JOC.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Claimant is seeking to avail of a redundancy package through the Company Exit Schemes.
- The Employer said this would involve a significant cost to the Company.
This matter was referred to a Rights Commissioner for investigation and Recommendation. On the 3rd September 2014 the Rights Commissioner issued the following Recommendation:-- Both parties made written and verbal submissions at the hearing. I find the claimant has 40 years of service with the respondent and find that he is anxious to avail of the package. I find the respondent on the other hand has a responsibility to ensure that they have sufficient numbers in each category of staff to meet business requirements. I find the respondent should keep the position under review bearing in mind the length of service the claimant has given to them. I find that it is a matter for the respondent to select employees for redundancy in a fair and transparent manner.
I cannot support the claimants claim.
- Both parties made written and verbal submissions at the hearing. I find the claimant has 40 years of service with the respondent and find that he is anxious to avail of the package. I find the respondent on the other hand has a responsibility to ensure that they have sufficient numbers in each category of staff to meet business requirements. I find the respondent should keep the position under review bearing in mind the length of service the claimant has given to them. I find that it is a matter for the respondent to select employees for redundancy in a fair and transparent manner.
A Labour Court hearing took place on the 27th February 2015.
WORKER’S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Claimant was an employee of An Post since May 1974. In 2014 the Company notified staff of a redundancy package that was opened to staff.
2. The Claimant applied for the package in January 2014 and was told he did not qualify as he was a “Working Leader” and that the exit scheme only applied to “Postal Operative Grade”.
3. The Claimant said his job was primarily that of a Postal Operative and that he is eligible to avail of the Company Exit Scheme.
EMPLOYER’S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Claimant was employed with An Post from 1974 until his retirement on the 24th December 2014.
2. Arising from the redesign of a number of Cork offices a surplus staffing at Postal Operative level were identified. A number of Postal Operatives were afforded the opportunity to exit the Company under the terms of the Voluntary Retirement/Severance Scheme.
3. The Claimant was a Working Leader. No surplus staffing existed or currently exists within that grade in Cork and consequently he cannot avail of the VER scheme.
DECISION:
Having given careful consideration to the submissions of both parties to this dispute the Court notes the willingness of both sides to refer the matters in dispute to the relevant Monitoring Committee for determination in accordance with the terms of the relevant Agreements.
The Court accordingly finds that the current dispute should be resolved on that basis and decides accordingly.
Should the Monitoring Committee decide that the issue in dispute is not an appropriate matter for it to determine the parties should revert to the Court for a definitive Decision.
The Court so decides.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Brendan Hayes
CR______________________
11th March, 2015.Deputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Decision should be addressed to Ciaran Roche, Court Secretary.