FULL RECOMMENDATION
SECTION 13(9), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES: AMDOCS (REPRESENTATION BY MR. MURRAY B.L. INSTRUCTED BY LEWIS SILKIN IRELAND) - AND - A WORKER DIVISION:
SUBJECT: 1.Appeal of Adjudication Officer Decision No(s) ADJ-00033353, CA-00044221-002 However, this case arises under the Industrial Relations Act and the sole function of the Court is to use its knowledge and experience to seek to find a resolution to the trade dispute. The Court exercised its discretion under the Act to allow the Employer to be represented by a legally qualified practitioner, in accordance with the terms of the Act. The Worker asked the Court to uphold the Recommendation of the Adjudication Officer that the Employer should pay 6 weeks’ compensation per year of service, in addition to statutory redundancy. This Recommendation is not accepted by the Employer who has since offered to pay 3 weeks’ pay per year of service, in addition to statutory redundancy. This offer represents a significant improvement on the position that the Employer was prepared to offer at the time of the adjudication and is stated to be the Employer’s final position. It may well be that, had the Employer offered this at an earlier stage, it might not have been necessary for the Worker to make a formal claim and to utilise the State dispute resolution machinery. In any event, if the Court was simply to uphold the Recommendation under appeal, given the voluntary nature of this process, such a decision would not assist the parties in resolving the dispute and, thus, would offer no assistance to the Worker, despite their belief to the contrary. Given the significant improvement in the Employer’s position, the Court is of the view that the Worker should accept the offer of three weeks’ pay per year of service as an ‘ex gratia’ payment, in addition to statutory redundancy already paid, as a full and final resolution of the dispute. The Court so decides.
NOTE Enquiries concerning this Decision should be addressed to Nuria de Cos Lara, Court Secretary. |