INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2004
SECTION 20(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969
P.J. CARROLL & CO. LIMITED
(REPRESENTED BY IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION)
- AND -
Chairman: Mr McGee
Employer Member: Mr Murphy
Worker Member: Ms Ni Mhurchu
1. Enhanced redundancy package
2. In April, 1998, the worker was made redundant after 25 years, the last 10 years in the position of filter making and cigarette making supervisor / foreman. The redundancy was as a result of a Company re-organisation. It was compulsory and the worker claims that at no time was he offered alternative employment. He also claims that the Managing Director assured him that if there was any improvement in the redundancy package it would apply to the worker.
In May, 1998, Labour Court Recommendation (LCR) No. 15876, which related to redundancy at the Company, was issued. In it the Court recommended that those who were selected for compulsory redundancy should be offered an enhanced package from a £3,000 (€3809.21) to £8,000 (€10,157.902) lump sum to facilitate training. The worker applied for the package but was informed that the package only applied to workers in the packing area. He also claims that another worker in the same position as himself was paid the enhanced package under a confidentiality agreement. The worker is also relying on LCR 18357 which issued in October, 2005. In it the Court recommended that two workers in the Company who were being made redundant should also be paid the enhanced 1998 redundancy package.
The Company has rejected the worker's claim stating that he had accepted the redundancy terms at the time of his departure.
The worker referred his case to the Labour Court on the 31st of March, 2006, in accordance with Section 20(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 25th of August, 2006.
3. 1. The worker was not made redundant as such as his role was not done away with. It was divided up among three other workers.
2. The Managing Director had promised the worker that he would avail of any enhanced redundancy package but he was over-ruled by the Human Resources Manager.
3. Another employee, in the same position as the worker concerned, received the redundancy package. The worker believes that this was because the employee was a member of a union which the worker was not.
4. 1. The worker is a former employee and he accepted full redundancy terms when he departed in 1998. He is not entitled to anything beyond what he agreed to and accepted at the time.
2. LCR 15876 impacted on 5 employees. The Company did not pay an additional 20 hourly-paid employees as requested by the union as they were not eligible under the terms of the recommendation. The worker concerned was also not eligible.
3. LCR 18357 was unique to the two employees concerned and cannot be relied on by the worker.
4. The assurances given by the Managing Director related to voluntary redundancies. The worker has confirmed that he was made compulsorily redundant.
The Court notes that this case has been in contention since 1998 and predates the cases to which LCR 18357 applied. It is the view of the Court that the claimant is a worker comprehended under the terms of LCR 15876 and that certain assurances were also given to him. The Court, therefore, recommends that the claim should be conceded and the claimant should receive the enhanced lump sum of €6,350 under the terms of that Recommendation.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
8th September, 2006______________________
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Ciaran O'Neill, Court Secretary.