FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 13(9), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : BORD NA MONA - AND - A WORKER (REPRESENTED BY SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION) DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Duffy Employer Member: Ms Doyle Worker Member: Mr Shanahan |
1. Appeal of Rights Commissioner Recommendation No: R-153186-Ir-14/MH
BACKGROUND:
2. This is an appeal by the worker of Rights Commissioner Recommendation No: R-153186-Ir-14/MH. The issue concerns a restructure within the Organisation's HR Department. and the offer of alternative employment to the worker which she did not accept on the grounds of unsuitability. The worker was ultimately dismissed by the employer. The Union is seeking that the worker be reinstated and that she be facilitated with working between both locations on a basis to be agreed. Management contends that as the worker turned down what it considered to be a suitable alternative and based on the fact that there were no other positions available, it had no option but to make the worker redundant.
The matter was referred to a Rights Commissioner for investigation: A Recommendation issued on the 23rd July 2015 and did not find in favour of the worker's claim. On the 11th August 2015 the worker 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 6th October 2015.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3 1 The worker was dismissed prior to the issue being heard by the Rights Commissioner. As a result Management acted at variance to its own grievance procedures. In addition the issue of possible alternatives was not explored with the worker and the Union was not involved in the negotiation of redundancy terms that were subsequently offered to the worker. The Union is seeking that the worker be reinstated to her position within the organisation.
MANAGEMENT'S ARGUMENTS:
4 1 Management made every effort to resolve this dispute. As a result of the restructuring there were no suitable vacancies at her level in the preferred location and she had refused employment at her level in the new location on the basis of the travelling distance involved. In the circumstances Management had no option but to make the worker redundant.
DECISION:
The Court has carefully considered the submissions of the parties in this case.
It appears to the Court that the manner in which this matter was handled was somewhat unsatisfactory in that the decision to make the Claimant redundant was taken while the hearing of her claim before the Rights Commissioner was imminent. The Claimant also accepted the package offered at that time, notwithstanding the a Rights Commissioner hearing of her grievance concerning the circumstances giving rise to the redundancy was pending. It is noted that the waiver signed by the Claimant on receipt of the redundancy payment expressly provided for the continued pursuance her case giving rise to this appeal.
It is further noted that the Union is claiming that the Claimant be reinstated by the Company. However, it is accepted that there is no suitable position now available into which she could be reemployed.
Having regard to all the circumstances of this case, and in particular the manner and timing of the redundancy, the Court has come to the conclusion that some further improvement should be made in the redundancy package paid to the Claimant. The Court, therefore, has concluded that the total severance package paid to the Claimant (€72,724.40) should be rounded-up to one of €80,000 in full and final settlement of all claims against the Company arising from her redundancy.
The decision is made having regard to the particular circumstances of this case and is not intended to have any precedent value in any other case.
The Rights Commissioner’s recommendation is varied accordingly.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Duffy
23rd October 2015______________________
AHChairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Decision should be addressed to Andrew Heavey, Court Secretary.