FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 20(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : ARRABAWN CO-OP SOCIETY - AND - A WORKER (REPRESENTED BY SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION) DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Duffy Employer Member: Ms Doyle Worker Member: Ms Tanham |
1. Failure of Employer to honour full terms of Termination Settlement
BACKGROUND:
2. This case concerns a dispute between Arrabawn Co-Operative Society and SIPTU in relation to one of the Co-Op's former employees. The issue concerns a worker who, for personal reasons and on the advice of his employer availed of the organisations early retirement option. The worker had an expectation that as well as the redundancy payments, he would also have access to his pension entitlements under the early retirement scheme. It is alleged that pension payments to early retirees were subsequently suspended by the trustees of the scheme and the pension claim made by the worker was not processed.
The matter was referred to the Labour Court on 12th March, 2010 in accordance with Section 20(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969. A Labour Court hearing took place on 15th November, 2011.
The Company did not attend the hearing.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3 1 The worker was not aware that the pension option available to early retirees was discretionary and could be removed. If he had been aware of this, he would not have availed of voluntary redundancy.
2 The worker's circumstances have now changed and he is now seeking re-employment with the Company. On the basis of his availability for work and on the events that occurred post redundancy, the Union's claim for re-employment is fair and reasonable in the circumstances.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court notes that there is no suggestion that the Society acted unfairly in the events giving rise to the termination of the Claimant's employment. However, the claimant decided to terminate his employment in the reasonable expectation that he would benefit from early retirement. Due to circumstances outside the control of both the Claimant and the Society this expectation was not realised.
The Union is now seeking to have the Claimant re-engaged. In the Court's view, having regard to all the circumstances of the case, the Unions position is reasonable. Accordingly the Court recommends that the Company should consider the Claimant for re-employment should a suitable vacancy arise in the future.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Duffy
5th December 2011______________________
AHChairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Andrew Heavey, Court Secretary.