Labour Court Database
__________________________________________________________________________________
File Number: CD89290
Case Number: LCR12445
Section / Act: S20(1)
Parties: BABYGRO LIMITED - and - TWO WORKERS
|
Subject:
Claim for increased redundancy payments on behalf of two workers.
Recommendation:
4. The Court, after careful consideration of the facts as
presented at the hearing has come to the view that the claimants
have been unfairly treated in the matter of redundancy pay.
Accordingly, in the absence of any evidence to the contrary the
Court recommends that both claimants be treated on the same basis
as Mr. J. Bagnall and paid accordingly.
Division: CHAIRMAN Mr Shiel Mr O'Murchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD89290 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR12445
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 20(1)
PARTIES: BABYGRO LIMITED
and
TWO WORKERS
SUBJECT:
1. Claim for increased redundancy payments on behalf of two
workers.
BACKGROUND:
2. The workers concerned had been employed for many years at the
Company's Patrick Street Branch. Prior to the closure of the
Company in 1988 the workers, together with the purchasing manager,
were offered and accepted their statutory redundancy entitlements.
When the Company finally went into liquidation it transpired that
the rest of the workforce received ex gratia payments in addition
to their statutory redundancy entitlements. The workers concerned
wrote to the Company seeking the same settlements but the Company
refused to pay. The purchasing manager however received the extra
payments after taking the matter up with Management. The
employees tried to avail of the services of a Rights Commissioner
but the Company objected to his investigation. The workers then
referred the dispute to the Labour Court under Section 20(1) of
the Industrial Relations Act, 1969 and agreed to be bound by the
Court's recommendation. A Court hearing was held on the 17th May,
1989. The Company did not attend the hearing.
WORKER'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. When the workers accepted their statutory redundancy
payments they were advised by Management at the time that this
was the proper course of action to take as cash might not be
available at the time of liquidation.
2. The workers volunteered to take early redundancy and were
assured that no further settlement (other than statutory
payments) would be made to the rest of the workforce.
3. The purchasing manager, who availed of the early
redundancy package at the same time as the workers concerned,
received the extra payment having made representations to the
Company, and he was assured at the time by Management that the
two workers would also receive this payment.
4. When the two workers contacted Management they were
advised that their claim would be dealt with but to date the
Company has not done so.
5. The workers feel that they been treated most unfairly and
are claiming the same ex gratia settlement as made to the rest
of the workforce.
RECOMMENDATION:
4. The Court, after careful consideration of the facts as
presented at the hearing has come to the view that the claimants
have been unfairly treated in the matter of redundancy pay.
Accordingly, in the absence of any evidence to the contrary the
Court recommends that both claimants be treated on the same basis
as Mr. J. Bagnall and paid accordingly.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Heffernan
_______________________
26th June, 1989. Chairman
T.O'D./J.C.