Labour Court Database
__________________________________________________________________________________
File Number: CD87451
Case Number: LCR11324
Section / Act: S20(1)
Parties: MURPHY & GUNN LTD. - and - DENIS MCDONNELL
|
Subject: Claim for enhanced redundancy terms.
Recommendation: 5. In the circumstances of this case the Court does not
recommend an increase in the amount of redundancy already
negotiated and paid.
Division: Ms Owens Mr Shiel Ms Ni Mhurchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________ CD87451 THE LABOUR COURT LCR11324
SECTION 20(1) INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT 1969
RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR11324
PARTIES: MURPHY & GUNN LIMITED
(REPRESENTED BY THE SOCIETY OF THE IRISH MOTOR INDUSTRY)
AND
A WORKER
SUBJECT:
1. Claim for enhanced redundancy terms.
BACKGROUND:
2. In October, 1980, the worker concerned commenced his
apprenticeship as a mechanic with the Company. He completed his
apprenticeship in October, 1984, and was let go. However, he was
re-employed by the Company two weeks later and worked until the
30th July, 1986, when as a result of a fall-off in business, he
was made redundant. He was given a total of #660 in redundancy.
The worker later referred a claim for unfair dismissal and
increased redundancy payments to a Rights Commissioner but the
Company was unwilling to attend such a hearing. He then referred
a claim for increased redundancy terms only to the Labour Court
under Section 20(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969 agreeing
to be bound by the Court's recommendation. A Court hearing took
place on the 7th July, 1987.
Worker's argument:
3. (a) The worker considers that the redundancy terms he
received to be inadequate and unfair. Others who were
made redundant by Management were more favourably
treated, for example, a mechanic who was let go a month
after the worker concerned was given #3,000 after only
four years' service.
Company's arguments:
4. (a) The worker concerned was issued with two weeks' notice
of redundancy, to expire on the 20th June, 1986.
Protracted negotiations took place with his trade union
and consequently he was not declared redundant until
the 30th July, 1986.
(b) At the time of his redundancy he was the mechanic with
the least service in the Company and he was given a
total redundancy payment of #660. This figure was
negotiated by his trade union on his behalf and it
reflected the trading position of the Company.
Furthermore, the payment was made in line with those
paid to others who were made redundant.
(c) The agreement reached was paid in good faith and was
accepted by the worker. The Company finds it extremely
difficult to have any sympathy with this claim as he
agreed the settlement and has only submitted his claim
a full year later.