FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 20(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : DARLEY ENTERPRISES LIMITED - AND - A WORKER (REPRESENTED BY PATRICK F O'REILLY & CO SOLICITORS) DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Hayes Employer Member: Mr Murphy Worker Member: Mr Nash |
1. Redundancy terms.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Company is a relatively small company with 15 employees, which provides administrative and consultancy services to the Construction Industry.
The Worker commenced employment with the Company as an Industrial Relations/Administration Manager on the Xerox project in Dundalk in February 1999. His employment continued on several other projects. In May 2007 he commenced working on the Corrib project and remained there until the termination of his employment on 28th August 2009.
The matter before the Court concerns the terms of the Worker's redundancy. The Company offered the minimum statutory terms of redundancy. The Worker is seeking six weeks pay per year of service inclusive of statutory entitlements.
The issue could not be resolved at local level. The Worker referred a complaint to the Labour Court on the 13th October, 2009, in accordance with Section 20(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969. He agreed to be bound by the recommendation of the Court. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 7th April, 2010.
WORKER'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Worker maintains that no proper procedures were carried out in relation to his proposed redundancy. There was no consultation nor any representation offered to the Worker.
2. The Worker maintains that while an ex-gratia payment was apparent from the papers this was not in fact an ex-gratia payment in the true sense, but rather his entitlement to a loyalty bonus and his holiday leave entitlement.
3. It is the Worker's position that he should have been paid six weeks pay per year of service inclusive of statutory entitlements based on average earnings.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Company maintains that previous redundancy payments made by the Company were made at the standard statutory redundancy rate which were increased substantially by the government in 2003.
2. The Company is operating in an extremely difficult and fraught economic climate. Recent cut-backs in the Government Building Programme leaves the Company in a very unstable position with further redundancies expected in the near future.
3. The Company stated that previous redundancies within the Company were paid at statutory rates which it maintains are the norm within the Construction Industry.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court has carefully considered the oral and written submissions of both parties in this case. The Court is satisfied that the particular circumstances surrounding the termination of the Claimant's employment with the Company that emerged in the course of the hearing distinguishes this from the normal redundancy situations that arise in the construction industry. Accordingly, the Court recommends that the Claimant be paid enhanced redundancy terms of two weeks' average pay per year of service in addition to his statutory entitlement.
The Court so recommends.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Brendan Hayes
22nd April, 2010______________________
MG.Deputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Madelon Geoghegan, Court Secretary.