INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2004
SECTION 13(9), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969
LYONS EXCAVATIONS LTD
(REPRESENTED BY C.I.F.)
- AND -
(REPRESENTED BY SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION)
Chairman: Mr Duffy
Employer Member: Mr Grier
Worker Member: Mr Nash
1. Appeal Against Rights Commissioner's Recommendation Ir-35576/05/Mr
2. This case is an appeal by the Union of Rights Commissioners Recommendation Ir-35576/05/Mr. The dispute concerns the alleged unfair dismissal of the worker following an unfair selection for redundancy.
The Union's position is that the worker was unfairly treated as he was not offered alternative employment with the Company. The Company's position is that the worker was made redundant on the basis that there was no longer any available work for him to do but also on the basis of his discliplinary record and other safety issues that arose in the course of his employment.
The matter was referred to a Rights Commissioner for investigation and recommendation. The Rights Commissioner found that the Company had allowed the workers recent disciplinary issues to infleunce its decision in selecting him for redundancy which was unfair. His recommendation issued on the 5th April, 2006 as follows:
"In the circumstances, I recommend that Lyons Excavations should now agree, on a once off and "without precedent" basis, to pay the claimant an ex-gratia lump sum of €2000. For their part the claimant and SIPTU should accept this payment in full and final settlement of all matters in dispute between the parties."
The Worker was named in the Rights Commissioner's recommendation.
On the 17th May, 2006, the Union appealed the Rights Commissioners Recommendation in accordance with Section 13(9) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969. A Labour Court hearing took place on 6th December, 2006
3. 1. The Company did not apply fair procedures when selecting the worker for redundancy. The worker has been unemployed for a considerable length of time and has only recently returned to the workforce. This period of forced unemployment has resulted in significant financial loss.
4. 1. The worker was made redundant on the basis that there was no longer any work available for him to do. There were also other members of staff who were made redundant at the same time. The Company, when selecting the worker for redundancy, could not ignore disciplinary and safety issues that had arisen during the course of his employment.
The Court has carefully considered the submissions of the parties to this appeal.
Having done so the Court can see no compelling reason as to why it should interfere
with the Recommendation of the Rights Commissioner.
Accordingly the Recommendation of the Rights Commissioner is affirmed and the appeal is disallowed.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
22nd December 2006______________________
Enquiries concerning this Decision should be addressed to Andrew Heavey, Court Secretary.