FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 20(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : MARSH'S LIBRARY (REPRESENTED BY DAC BEACHCROFT SOLICITORS) - AND - A WORKER (REPRESENTED BY SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION) DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Foley Employer Member: Ms Cryan Worker Member: Mr McCarthy |
1. Unfair selection for redundancy.
BACKGROUND:
2. This case concerns a claim of unfair selection for redundancy.
- The Union said the claimant was selected unfairly and that the compulsory redundancy could have been avoided, if meaningful attention had been given to the commercial side of the business.
- The Employer said it was only when calculations of income derived from the external commercial work were undertaken that it became apparent that the commercial work carried out by the two members of staff of the Bindery did not cover the costs of their employment.
On the 28th April 2016 the Union referred the dispute to the Labour Court in accordance with Section 20(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969 and agreed to be bound by the Court's Recommendation.
A Labour Court hearing took place on the 21st June 2016.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Claimant had worked for the Employer for 20 years as a professional Paper Conservator.
2. She also did commercial work which helped cover the costs of her salary.
3. The Claimant is seeking an enhanced redundancy package.
EMPLOYER'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Claimant was the only employee employed as a Paper Conservator and the question of selection does not arise.
2. A clear business reason existed for making the Claimant redundant.
3. There were 5 other employees made redundant due to the requirement for cost savings.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court has given careful consideration to the written and oral submissions of the parties in this case.
The Court is conscious that the employer has found it necessary to make several redundancies over recent years for reasons stated to be associated with the its’ financial position. The Court has been advised of the terms made available to the persons other than the claimant who were made redundant over the period. The Court has also been advised of the long service of the claimant and the esteem within which her professional skills are held. The Court notes the employer’s clarification that the issues giving rise to the financial challenges it faced were not exclusively arising from the commercial position of the bindery.
In all of the circumstances of this particular case the Court recommends that the employer should make an ex-gratia payment of a further €20,000 as part of the redundancy terms paid to the claimant. Payment of this amount should be acknowledged as being in full and final settlement of all issues arising from the redundancy of the claimant.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Foley
CR______________________
11th July, 2016Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Ciaran Roche, Court Secretary.