LCR21513

FULL RECOMMENDATION

CD/16/373

RECOMMENDATIONNO.LCR21513

SECTION 20(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969

PARTIES :

ACC LOAN MANAGEMENT DAC ( FORMERLY ACC BANK PLC)
(REPRESENTED BY IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION)

- AND -

A WORKER
(REPRESENTED BY SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION)

DIVISION :

Chairman: Mr Haugh
Employer Member: Mr Murphy
Worker Member: Ms O'Donnell

SUBJECT:
1. Full payment of redundancy.

BACKGROUND:

2. This dispute concerns the Worker's claim for a redundancy payment. The Worker referred this case to Labour Court on 2 December 2016 in accordance with Section 20(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969, and agreed to be bound by the recommendation of the Court. A Labour Court hearing took place on 7 February 2017 and was attended by both parties. This hearing was adjourned and a subsequent hearing took place on 29 June 2017. The Employer declined to attend this hearing.

UNION’S ARGUMENTS:

3. 1. The Worker was treated unfairly and differently from many of his colleagues.

2. He had been encouraged and indeed warned to apply for redundancy and told there was no future for him by the Respondent.

3. The Worker was left with no choice but to seek alternative employment.

EMPLOYER'S ARGUMENTS:

4. 1. The Respondent submitted that the Court has previously disposed of this matter by way of Labour Court Recommendation No. LCR20899 and the Court now does not have jurisdiction to hear the matter.

RECOMMENDATION:

Background to the Dispute

The Court heard the within claim on two dates: 7 February 2017 & 29 June 2017. The Respondent, represented by IBEC, attended on the first date only, after which it withdrew from the process. The dispute relates to a claim for severance. The Court also dealt with an identical claim brought by another Worker in identical circumstances on the same date (CD/16/374).

At the outset, the Respondent raised a preliminary jurisdictional objection. It referred the Court to a previous Recommendation LCR20899 in which it submitted the Court had made a recommendation in relation to the same issue, on the same facts. It, therefore, requested the Court to dismiss the within claim.

In LCR20889 the Court recommended as follows:

“… that the parties adhere to the agreement and that the subject matter of this dispute be referred to the Facilitator for guidance in accordance with the agreement.”

The Union submits that the Worker complied fully with the Court’s Recommendation and did submit his claim to the Facilitator “for guidance” only but did not participate in a binding arbitration process overseen by the Facilitator and was thus entitled to pursue the within claim before the Court.

At the conclusion of the hearing on the first date, the Court reserved its position on the jurisdictional issue and invited the Parties to make additional written submissions to it by a stated date. After some procrastination, the Respondent, through its representative organisation, informed the Court that it was declining the Court’s invitation to make additional submissions.

Having given detailed consideration to the Parties’ respective submissions in relation to the jurisdictional issue, and having regard to the text of LCR20889, the Court finds that the Worker is not precluded from pursuing the within claim.

The Worker was employed in the Agri-Lending section of the Respondent’s business until 2014. In November 2013, he – along with other colleagues in that part of the business – was informed that his job was at risk of redundancy and he should start looking for alternative employment. The Worker was told again in January/February 2014 that the Respondent saw no future for its Agri-Lending business and that he did not possess key skills of debt management required to work in the remaining part of the business. He received several assurances from members of management at all levels that his application for redundancy would be supported. On the basis of these assurances, he successfully sought and obtained employment elsewhere. Discussions were still ongoing between the Union and the Respondent in relation to the terms of the severance package at the point when the Worker could no longer delay taking up the job offer he had received. Nevertheless, he continued to receive assurances from management that he would receive the benefit of the severance terms when they were finalised although he was leaving employment before the company-union agreement had been finalised.

The Worker identified three former colleagues whose circumstances, for all intents and purposes, were identical to his own: i.e. they had left to take up employment elsewhere before the terms of the severance package had been finalised and they didn’t receive any severance/redundancy payment on the date they left. However, each of the three former colleagues did subsequently benefit from the severance scheme.

Recommendation

Having regard to the basic industrial relations principle of equity, the Court recommends that the Worker should be treated in like manner to his former colleagues who found themselves in similar circumstances. He should, therefore, receive the full benefit of the agreed redundancy package (the subject of LCR20698) of 5.5 weeks’ per year of service inclusive of statutory entitlements based on his service of 7 years and 9 months.

The Court so recommends.

Signed on behalf of the Labour Court

Alan Haugh
4 July 2017______________________
MNDeputy Chairman

NOTE

Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Michael Neville, Court Secretary.