FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 13(9), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : COCA COLA BOTTLERS IRELAND (REPRESENTED BY IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS CONFEDERATION) - AND - A WORKER (REPRESENTED BY SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION) DIVISION : Chairman: Mr McGee Employer Member: Mr Doherty Worker Member: Mr Nash |
1. Appeal of Recommendation of a Rights Commissioner R-071721-Ir-08/JO'C.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Company has operated for many years from its premises at the Naas Road. In 2007 it undertook a complete restructuring and this was complete in December of that year. As a result a number of employees were made redundant, including the worker concerned. His case is that he was not given credit in his redundancy package for broken services(2005-2007)prior to the date that his permanent service started which was 7th February, 2007, according to the Company. The parties negotiated a redundancy package which was accepted by the workers, including the worker concerned. When the worker received his initial redundancy he queried the dates and the figure was increased. However, he contended that not all of his casual leave had been taken into account.
The dispute was referred to a Rights Commissioner who found that he had no jurisdiction to hear the case and he issued a recommendation to that effect. The worker appealed the recommendation to the Labour Court on the 30th June, 2009, in accordance with Section 13(9) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 16th September, 2009.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Company's calculation for the second set of figures was 377 months. The worker reckons that the correct figure, taking all of his employment into account, should be 390 weeks. A number of other employees who were made redundant had their casual service included in their redundancy figures.
2. The worker disputes that he was made redundant. He contends that he is unemployed.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Company does not believe that the claimant is a "worker" as covered by the Industrial Relations Act and, as such, the Labour Court does not have jurisdiction to hear the case.
2. Regardless of the jurisdiction issue, the Company believes that it has dealt fairly with the worker by granting him an additional 6 months' service from his permanent start date in February, 1977.
3. The worker was part of the collective agreement regarding redundancy in 1977.
DECISION:
The Court is satisfied that the claimant is a worker, made redundant from his employment and not a retired person as comprehended in LCR 16970 "Forfas and a worker". The Court decides accordingly, that it has jurisdiction to hear the case and overturns the recommendation of the Rights Commissioner.
The Court is, however, of the view that the settlement to which the claimant put his name, albeit under protest, on 21st December 2007, was a fair industrial relations compromise on the matter which recognised an element of previous service and, which should have been accepted as such.
The Court, accordingly, rejects the claim for an enhanced payment and so decides.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Raymond McGee
24th September, 2009.______________________
CON.Deputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Decision should be addressed to Ciaran O'Neill, Court Secretary.