FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 13(9), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : UNILEVER IRELAND - AND - A WORKER (REPRESENTED BY SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION) DIVISION : Chairman: Mr McGee Employer Member: Mr Murphy Worker Member: Ms Ni Mhurchu |
1. Appeal Of Recommendation Of A Rights Commissioner R-065555-Ir-08/Eh
BACKGROUND:
2. The issue before the Court concerns a claim by the Union for its member to be awarded a long service payment. The Company operates a service award scheme to recognise the contribution of long serving employees at 15 years, 25 years and 40 years. The worker concerned was employed with the Company for over 24 years. He was subject to compulsory redundancy before completing his 25th year with the Company. It is the Union's claim that the worker would happily have worked on until retirement and did not wish to leave the Company nor did he leave to take up another position. It is also claimed that the Company allowed another individual to stay on after his retirement date so he could collect his long service award. The Company's position is that the long service award is only given on the anniversary of the date of employment provided the employee is still in employment with the Company at the time.
The matter was referred to a Rights Commissioner for investigation and recommendation. On the 3rd October, 2008 the Rights Commissioner issued his Recommendation as follows:
"Findings
I find that there are clear criteria for regarding the qualification for the service award.
I find that the Company has consistently applied the criteria
I find that the service award is payable on the anniversary of the date of joining, provided the employee is still in employment.
I accept the Company's contention that there would be knock-on effects if this claim were granted, not just at 25 years service but 15 and 40 also.
I find that under the unfortunate circumstances of redundancy the package is there to deal with consequences of that occurrence. To seek the payment of the service award and the full redundancy package is to seek the best of both arrangements without necessarily qualifying for them.
I note that (worker named) signed a waiver in full and final settlement of all claims against the Company, he should accept that that agreement is in itself full and final.
Recommendation
I have carefully considered the written and oral submission made at the hearing and I recommend that this claim is not well founded and that it fails."
On the 18th November, 2008 the worker appealed the Rights Commissioner's recommendation to the Labour Court in accordance with Section 13(9) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 22nd January, 2009.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1 The worker did not choose to leave the Company. This was a compulsory redundancy situation. The worker would happily return to work to comply with the criteria where he could clock up his service from 24.31 years to 25 years.
2 Regarding the waiver, the worker signed this in the knowledge that he would take no claim after the 30th June, 2008. The worker believes his claim for his long service award was activated in May, 2008 before he left the Company and is not covered by the waiver.
3 It is the worker's claim that the Company can break the rules. It allowed one individual to stay on after his retirement date so he could collect his long service award. The worker is not claiming his full entitlement, he would accept a pro-rata sum.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1 The Company has been through many change programmes resulting in redundancies throughout the years. The Company has not paid service awards out to these individuals, despite some being closer to the long service award date than the worker concerned here.
2 There is no automatic entitlement to the long service awards. They are discretionary payments.
3 The worker signed two waiver agreements stating the acceptance of the severance payment as full and final settlement of any and every claim against the Company.
DECISION:
Having considered the submissions made by the parties, the Court finds no reason to alter the Recommendation of the Rights Commissioner, so decides and affirms the Recommendation.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Raymond McGee
9th February, 2009______________________
DNDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Decision should be addressed to David P Noonan, Court Secretary.