INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2004
SECTION 13(9), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969
D F DOYLE & CO LTD
(REPRESENTED BY IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION)
- AND -
Chairman: Mr McGee
Employer Member: Mr Murphy
Worker Member: Mr O'Neill
1. Appeal of Rights Commissioner's Recommendation IR16249/03/MR - Double Appeal.
2. The case before the Court is a double appeal of Rights Commissioner's Recommendation IR/16249/03/MR.
The dispute concerns a former employee of D F Doyle & Company Ltd, a Stevedoring Company operating in the Port of Cork.
The employee in question retired in 1997. Restructuring proposals initiated in 1997 were concluded in 2003 whereby manning levels were reduced and redundancy terms agreed. The former employee is claiming that as he was in employment in 1997 he should have benefited from the redundancy package agreed in 2003.
The Company is claiming that the redundancy package is not relevant to the claimant, as he was no longer an employee of the Company at the time agreement was reached on the redundancies.
The matter was referred to the Rights Commissioner who issued his Recommendation on the 29th of October, 2004 as follows:-
"Accordingly, I now formally recommend that D F Doyle & Company Ltd should agree, as a gesture of goodwill and on a wholly exceptional basis, to make a once-off lump sum payment of €1,000 to the Claimant and that the Claimant should accept this payment in full and final settlement of all matters in dispute between the parties".
On the 25th of November, 2004, both parties appealed the decision to the Labour Court in accordance with Section 13(9) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 12th of October, 2005.
3. 1. The employee was in employment at the time of the rationalisation proposals. Therefore an entitlement exists to the terms of the redundancy agreement.
4. 1. The employee had retired in 1997. The rationalisation agreement was not concluded until 2003. The employee was not employed by the Company at the time of the redundancies.
2. There was no provision in the 2003 Agreement for casual dockers who had returned to be paid a redundancy payment or an ex-gratia lump sum payment.
3. Concession of the claim would have repercussive effects throughout the Company as there are several other former employees in the same situation.
Having considered the written and oral submissions of the parties the Court finds no reason to alter the Recommendation of the Rights Commissioner and dismisses both appeals.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
8th November, 2005______________________
Enquiries concerning this Decision should be addressed to Andrew Heavey, Court Secretary.