INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 20(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969
SCREEN TECH LTD
(REPRESENTED BY A & L GOODBODY SOLICITORS)
- AND -
(REPRESENTED BY RORY B. BENVILLE & CO SOLICITORS)
Chairman: Mr Duffy
Employer Member: Mr Keogh
Worker Member: Mr Rorke
1. Method of selection for redundancy.
2. The worker commenced employment with the Company on the 10th November, 1997 and was employed as a general operative in the printing section on a two shift operation. He was then transferred to the assembly section on the 19th January 1998 as there was not enough work to maintain two shifts. The worker was subsequently made redundant.
The worker claims that he was selected unfairly for redundancy as there was another worker with less service retained by the Company.
The Company rejects the worker's claim and states that the worker retained in the printing section was more suited to the work than the claimant.
The dispute was referred to the Labour Court by the worker under Section 20(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969 and he agreed to be bound by the Court's recommendation. The Court investigated the dispute on the 31st August, 1998.
3. 1. The Company operated its redundancy scheme in an unfair and arbitrary manner.
2. The worker has suffered embarrassment and financial loss as a result of the Company's decision to make him redundant.
3. Prior to the redundancy the Company operated a policy of "Last in First Out". However, in this particular instance the Company did not operate this rule.
4. 1. The worker was offered but rejected alternative employment in the assembly section.
2. The Company had no alternative but to reduce the 2 shift operation in the printing area to one shift due to a downturn in business.
3. The worker was still on probation when he was made redundant.
The Court is satisfied that the claimant was selected for redundancy because of his refusal to accept alternative work in the Company's Assembly Department. As employees were interchangeable between departments the Court considers that the claimant's refusal to accept the work offered was unreasonable.
The Court recommends that the claimant accepts that he was not unfairly selected for redundancy.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
3rd September, 1998______________________
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Larry Wisely, Court Secretary.