Worker

Employer

Anonymised Parties

Manager

Catering Company

Representatives

Des Courtney SIPTU

No Show

Act

Dispute Reference No.

Date of Receipt

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969

IR - SC - 00000657

11/09/2022

The worker transferred to the Employer in 1993 and has approximately 35 years’ service.

The company redundancy policy has been to pay 2 weeks statutory pay plus an additional 2 weeks pay per year of service. The Company changed this policy during the Covid Pandemic period by capping the redundancy at 1 year’s salary inclusive of statutory redundancy benefit.  The worker having been made compulsorily redundant is more disadvantaged than other employees as she has completed 32 years’ service. The amount to be paid to her above statutory entitlement is about €3000. This means that an employee with less service based average service would receive about the same as this worker. The policy was changed unilaterally.

The company redundancy policy has been to pay statutory pay plus 2 weeks pay per year of service. The new policy unilaterally introduced, capped the redundancy payment at one year’s salary. The worker has 32 years’ service with the Employer and is a large profitable and international enterprise. She was let go by the Company and having regard to her long service and contribution, this grievance is about the unfairness of capping the amount as she is disproportionately impacted. The worker can’t afford to retire and must find alternative work. The amount that she received above her statutory entitlement was just over €3000; although, she had very long service.

The Company declined to attend.

In conducting my investigation, I have considered all relevant submissions presented to me by the parties.

There are unique circumstances in this case and the worker has been significantly disadvantaged by the policy change.

Because of her long service the cap meant that she received in addition to statutory only €3172.

The worker had a reasonable expectation of an additional payment of €53,3000 if there was no cap.

The worker was paid €820 per week.

She has more than 32 years’ service with the firm based on her carry over under a transfer of undertakings.

The current policy has disproportionately affected the worker due to her long service.

This is an individual dispute referral.

Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act 1969 states:

(2) Subject to the provisions of this section, where a trade dispute (other than a dispute connected with rates of pay of, hours or times of work of, or annual holidays of, a body of workers) exists or is apprehended and involves workers within the meaning of Part VI of the Principal Act, a party to the dispute may refer it to a rights commissioner.

(3) (a) Subject to the provisions of this section, a rights commissioner shall investigate any trade dispute referred to him under subsection (2) of this section and shall, unless before doing so the dispute is settled—

(i) make a recommendation to the parties to the dispute setting forth his opinion on the merits of the dispute, and

As this dispute relates to a termination payment there is no exclusion to hear the dispute.

The policy of capping does create an inequity and unfairness for this worker. The worker’s grievance has merit.

The Cap has created a loss of about €50,000.

This is a confidential process, and I am minded that a recommendation should not disimprove relations at this company.

I recommend that the Company pay an ex-gratia payment of €35,000 arising from this worker’s long service and that the parties enter into a confidential agreement so that no precedent arises from the implementation of this recommendation. A term of that agreement is it will not be used as a precedent in a future dispute or referral to a third party.

Redundancy -Capping