INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2004
SECTION 20(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969
LADBROKES (IRELAND) 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. This case concerns a dispute between Ladbrokes (Ireland) Limited and a worker in relation to enhanced redundancy terms. The worker in question had been employed by the Company since 1986 and was made redundant in 2007. The worker is claiming that he was made redundant from his position and although he was offered alternative employment with the Company, it was not suitable alternative employment and would have resulted in a reduction in earnings. He is seeking an enhanced redundancy package of six weeks pay per year of service in addition to statutory entitlements.
The Company's position is that suitable alternative employment was offered to the worker and when this was refused the Company offered redundancy in line with previous redundancies in the Company.
On the 16th May, 2007, the worker referred the matter to the Labour Court 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 7th August, 2007.
3 1 The alternative employment offered by the Company was unsuitable and would have resulted in a substantial loss of earnings. The position was subsequently advertised by the Company at a much higher rate of pay than was offered to the worker prior to the redundancy.
2 The redundancy package offered by the Company is inadequate and out of line with comparable employments.
4 1 The worker was offered suitable alternative employment. When this offer was rejected, the Company offered redundancy terms in line with previous redundancies in the Company.
2 Concession of this claim will have a knock-on effect for other ex-employees and for future redundancies in the Company.
3 When the worker refused alternative employment, he effectively chose to accept the redundancy. It is unreasonable to accept redundancy and then seek an enhancement of the terms offered. The Company cannot sustain the additional costs of this claim.
Having considered the submissions made by the parties in this case, the Court has formed the view that the claimant was not offered suitable alternative employment and that therefore the level of severance paid to him by the Company was inadequate in the light of redundancy settlements paid in comparable employments.
The Court recommends that the Claimant be paid five weeks' pay per year of service inclusive of statutory redundancy, with no cap, in addition to the one month's pay in lieu of notice still outstanding, given that the Claimant had an entitlement in his contract to twelve weeks' notice having been given one month's notice and been paid for one month in lieu of notice previously.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
27th August 2007______________________
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Andrew Heavey, Court Secretary.