INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2004
SECTION 20(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969
HW MACHINE TOOLS LTD
- AND -
(REPRESENTED BY SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION)
Chairman: Ms Jenkinson
Employer Member: Mr Grier
Worker Member: Ms Ni Mhurchu
1. Enhanced redundancy payment.
2. The dispute arises from the termination of the worker's employment and the Union's claim for an enhanced redundancy payment. The worker was employed with the Company as a service engineer from 23rd September, 1996 to the 16th February, 2001 when he accepted a redundancy settlement. The Union was not directly involved in these discussions. However, subsequent to the deal and having regard to the totality of the events preceding the worker's departure the Union sought agreement, albeit belatedly, from the Company to pay enhanced redundancy terms. The Company rejects the Union's claim.
The claim could not be resolved at local level. The Union referred the matter to the Labour Court on the 13th September, 2004 in accordance with Section 20(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969 and agreed to be bound by the Court's recommendation. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 16th December, 2004.
3.1 The Company agreed a settlement with the worker, regrettably the Union was not directly involved in those discussions.The worker and the Company parted company with the worker receiving a statutory redundancy payment.
2. No explanation has been forthcoming from the Company or from the Company's client as to why the worker was no longer welcome at the client's plant.
3. The Company raised the issue of a mutual separation and in this context, redundancy was mooted as the only option available.
4. Enhanced redundancy payments are fairly common, particularly when there is a continued operation within the Company.
4.1 The worker received his full statutory entitlements at the time of his redundancy.
2. The worker's position was not filled after his redundancy.
3. The level of activity in the firm has fallen and the Company had no alternative but to make the worker redundant.
4. A redundancy settlement was agreed and the worker expressed himself happy, at the time, with the settlement.
5. The Company rejects the claim as it is without merit.
Having considered the views of the parties expressed in their oral and written submissions, the Court is of the view that the severance agreement reached between the worker and the Company on the 16th February, 2001 was appropriate in the circumstances and was accepted by the claimant in settlement of any action against the Company in relation to his termination of employment.
Therefore, the Court does not recommend concession of the claim for an enhanced redundancy package.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
20th December, 2004______________________
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Jackie Byrne, Court Secretary.