Amdocs (Represented by Lewis Silkin Ireland) v A Worker

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Judgment Date: 20 December 2022
• Judgment citation (vLex): [2022] 12 JIEC 2006
• Docket Number: FULL RECOMMENDATION ADJ-00033354 CA-00044226-002 DECISION NO. LCR22698 SECTION 13(9), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969
• Court: Labour Court (Ireland)

PARTIES:

Amdocs (Represented by Lewis Silkin Ireland)

and

A Worker

FULL RECOMMENDATION

CD/22/206

ADJ-00033354 CA-00044226-002

DECISION NO. LCR22698

SECTION 13(9), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969

Full Court

DIVISION:

Chairman: Mr Geraghty

Employer Member: Mr Marie

Worker Member: Ms Treacy

SUBJECT:

1 1. Appeal of Adjudication Officer Decision No(s) ADJ-00033354 CA-00044226-002

BACKGROUND:

2 2. WORKER'S ARGUMENTS:

3 The Worker requests that the Adjudication Officer's decision be upheld as they feel that the manner in which they were made redundant was not in line with the duty of care of a ‘caring employer.’ The worker believes that the contribution made to the company merits a compensation higher than their statutory entitlement.

4 COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:

5 The Company argues that if Workers have issues with the statutory provisions for redundancy, this matter would better be taken up with the Oireachtas and not the Company. However, the Company recognises the difficult position in which the Employees found themselves and is willing to maintain their previous offer of an ‘ex gratia’ payment of three weeks' pay per year of service.

DECISION:

6 This is one of a number of similar cases brought before the Court. In each case, the Court afforded the Worker the opportunity to share their experience and perspective. As ever when workers lose their jobs, the Court is struck by the profound personal and emotional impacts of this on the individuals affected.

7 However, this case arises under the Industrial Relations Act and the sole function of the Court is to use its knowledge and experience to seek to find a resolution to the trade dispute. The Court exercised its discretion under the Act to allow the Employer to be represented by a legally qualified practitioner, in accordance with the terms of the Act.

8 The Worker asked the Court to uphold the Recommendation of the Adjudication Officer that the Employer should pay 6 weeks' compensation per year of service, in addition to statutory redundancy. This Recommendation is not accepted by the Employer who has since offered to pay 3 weeks' pay per year of service, in addition to statutory redundancy. This offer represents a significant improvement on the position that the Employer was prepared to offer at the time of the adjudication and is stated to be the Employer's final position.

9 It may well be that, had the Employer offered this at an earlier stage, it might not have been necessary for the Worker to...