ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION

A Production Operator Represented by SIPTU –V- A Mushroom Producer

Adjudication Decision Reference: ADJ-00000482

1.    Complaint(s)/Dispute(s) for Resolution:

Date of Adjudication Hearing: 10/03/2016

Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Gerry Rooney

2.    Procedure:

1. In accordance with Section 41(4) of the Workplace Relations Act, and 2015 Sec 13 of the Industrial Relations Act 1969, following the referral of the complaint(s)/dispute(s) to me by the Director General, I inquired into the complaint and gave the parties an opportunity to be heard by me and to present to me any evidence relevant to the complaint(s)/dispute(s).

    

2. This complaint refers to a claim by the claimant who is seeking an enhanced redundancy payment from the respondent.

3.   

4.    Complainant’s Submission and Presentation:

1. The claimant is seeking an increase to his redundancy payment on the basis that what he received from his employer, a multinational company, is not in line with the industry norm for his sector.

    

2. The claimant outlined that following the notice for redundancy from his employer in September 2015 a consultation process took place with the respondent in September 2015 where he met with the respondent on three occasions seeking clarification in relation to the redundancy payments.

    

3. Following this consultation the claimant advised that respondent offered an enhanced ex- gratia payment equivalent to 2 weeks basic pay to employees who continued to work up to the end of the notice period. This claimant advised that this payment was to be in addition to the Ex-gratia payment as outlined in its original redundancy terms.

    

4. The claimant worked up to his notice period and completed a further two weeks work. He received his statutory redundancy entitlement plus and ex-gratia payment equivalent to 1 weeks basic pay per year of service, plus a further ex-gratia payment equivalent to 2 weeks basic pay for working up to his notice period..

    

5. However the claimant referred to a number of similar redundancy cases of other employers in the manufacturing sector which he argued demonstrated severance payments that were more favourable than what he was offered. In this regard the claimant specifically referred to a food manufacturer and a pharmaceutical manufacturer, and he was seeking an additional two weeks in line with the industry norm.

5.    Respondent’s Submission and Presentation:

1. The respondent did not make a submission nor did the respondent attend the hearing.

6.    Decision:

1. Section 41(4) of the Workplace Relations Act 2015 requires that I make a decision in relation to the complaint in accordance with the relevant redress provisions under Schedule 6 of that Act. Section 13 of the Industrial relations Act 1969 requires that I investigated the dispute and make a recommendation to the parties to the dispute setting forth my opinion on the merits of the dispute

    

2. Having considered the complaint I find that the claimant received an additional weeks payment for each year worked beyond his statutory entitlement, and as such the respondent has exceeded the minimum statutory obligations under the Redundancy Payment Act by some 15 weeks. Furthermore I am satisfied that the respondent entered a consultation process with the claimant , and following a consideration of matters it agreed to pay, in addition to the extra week for each year served, a further two weeks if the claimant was to serve his full notice period.

    

3. The claimant was paid in full and in accordance with the revised severance agreements.

    

4. I therefore do not find in favour of the complainant and his claim fails.

    

    

Dated:   25^th May 2016