INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 20(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969
- AND -
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
Chairman: Mr Flood
Employer Member: Mr Pierce
Worker Member: Mr Rorke
1. Redundancy terms.
2. The dispute before the Court concerns a claim by the Union on behalf of one of its members for payment of an agreed redundancy package.
The Company was based in Tallaght and manufactured Double Glazed Units. In January, 1998, the Company decided to reduce production in Tallaght and transfer most of the manufacturing to its Cork factory. All staff were offered jobs in Cork. Initially it was agreed that five staff including the worker concerned would be paid an agreed redundancy package as they did not wish to go to Cork. The Company then tried to persuade the worker concerned to go to Cork or stay on in Tallaght. He refused both offers and opted for redundancy. The Union is not satisfied that he received the correct redundancy which was already agreed.
The dispute was referred to the Labour Court in accordance with Section 20(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 12th of January, 1999. The Union agreed to be bound by the Court's recommendation.
3. 1. It was the Union's understanding that when the worker declined the offer of a job in Cork or Dublin and opted for redundancy he would receive the redundancy package already agreed.
2. The worker expected that his redundancy payment would be more than the amount paid to his four colleagues who had less service than he had.
4. 1. The worker was offered a position in Cork which he declined. He was then offered a position in the Dublin factory but declined. He requested redundancy.
2. His request for redundancy was granted and he received a cheque for £950. The Company advised him not to sign the form for the redundancy payment unless he was satisfied. He signed the form.
The Court is satisfied that the claimant was entitled to expect that he would be paid a figure more than that paid to the other employees based on his extra service.
The Court, therefore, recommends that the Company pay the claimant an additional £750 in full and final settlement of this claim.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
21st January, 1999______________________
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Gerardine Buckley, Court Secretary.