Irish Leathers Ltd v Minister for Labour

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Judge: Mr. Justice Barrington
• Judgment Date: 12 March 1986
• Neutral Citation: 1986 WJSC-HC 928
• Docket Number: No.570 SP/1984,[1984 No. 570 Sp.]
• Court: High Court
• Date: 12 March 1986

1986 WJSC-HC 928

THE HIGH COURT

No.570 SP/1984

IRISH LEATHERS LTD v. MIN LABOUR & JAMES FOLEY

Ct. 5

BETWEEN/

IRISH LEATHERS LIMITED

PLAINTIFFS

AND

THE MINISTER FOR LABOUR AND JAMES FOLEY

DEFENDANTS

Citations:

MINIMUM NOTICE & TERMS OF EMPLOYMENT ACT 1973 S1

MINIMUM NOTICE & TERMS OF EMPLOYMENT ACT 1973 S12

MINIMUM NOTICE & TERMS OF EMPLOYMENT ACT 1973 S12(1)

MINIMUM NOTICE & TERMS OF EMPLOYMENT ACT 1973 S4

MINIMUM NOTICE & TERMS OF EMPLOYMENT ACT 1973 S5

MINIMUM NOTICE & TERMS OF EMPLOYMENT ACT 1973 SCH 2

MINIMUM NOTICE & TERMS OF EMPLOYMENT ACT 1973 SCH 2 S1

MINIMUM NOTICE & TERMS OF EMPLOYMENT ACT 1973 SCH 2 S2 PARA(a)(1)

PARRY V CLEAVER 1969 1 AER 555 1970 AC 1

REDUNDANCY PAYMENTS ACT 1967

REDUNDANCY PAYMENTS ACT 1967 S11

REDUNDANCY PAYMENTS ACT 1967 S39

UNFAIR DISMISSALS ACT 1977 S18

WESTWOOD V SECRETARY OF STATE FOR EMPLOYMENT 1984 1 AER 874

Synopsis:

EMPLOYMENT

Termination

Notice - Period of notice - Continued payment of wages - Plaintiff employer trading at loss - Part of plaintiff's workforce, including defendant, laid off without pay - No improvement in plaintiff's finances - Plaintiff serving notice of dismissal on defendant - Defendant claiming payment of wages in respect of period of dismissal notice - Defendant in receipt of unemployment benefit from Department of Social Welfare from date on which he was laid off - Held that defendant entitled to receive normal wages, without deduction for unemployment benefits, for period of dismissal notice - Minimum Notice and Terms of Employment Act, 1973, ss.4, 5 - (1984/570 Sp. - Barrington J. - 12/3/86) - [1986] IR 177

|Irish Leathers v. Minister for Labour|

1 Judgment of Mr. Justice Barringtondelivered the 12th day of March 1986.

2 This is an appeal on a point of law from a decision of the Employment Appeals Tribunal given on the 23rd day of August, 1984.

3 The facts of the case are as follows. The Plaintiff is a publicly quoted Company based in Waterford and engaged in the tanning trade. In the years prior to 1983 the Plaintiff Company suffered heavy trading losses. As a result of these losses it planned to close down a tannery operated by a wholly owned subsidiary of the Plaintiff Company as and from the 16th September, 1983. Following negotiations with the workers' trade unions it was agreed to keep the tannery open but with a reduced workforce. The balance of the workforce was to be temporarily laid off and was to be given the opportunity of accepting redundancy if not re-employed within a certain time.

4 This compromise was accepted by the workers and the factory continued in production. Unfortunately, however, the Company was not able to re-employ as many workers as it had hoped and such workers as had not been called back by the end of March,1984 were declared redundant and the full redundancy pay plus 1.2 times the statutory redundancy was paid to these workers in April and May1984.

5 The second-named Defendant was one of the workers who was temporarily laid off in September, 1983. He was not called back to work and on the 6th April, 1984 he received notice of redundancy to expire at the end of six weeks, namely on the 18th May, 1984. His employment was brought to an end in accordance with this notice and by reason of redundancy, on the 18th May, 1984.

6 The second-named Defendant maintained that although he was on lay-off he should have received six weeks pay in lieu of notice. It was the contention of the company that because he was on lay-off he was not in a position to suffer loss and furthermore, that during the period of his lay-off he was in receipt of Social Welfare benefits and accordingly did not suffer loss, or suffered reduced, loss having regard to the provisions of Section 12 of the Minimum Notice and Terms of Employment Act, 1973.

7 The Employment Appeals Tribunal found in favour of the second-named Defendant and held that he was entitled to his six weeks pay without deduction of Social Welfare benefits. The employer is appealing to this Court against the decision of the Employment Appeals Tribunal. There are a number of other workers in the same position as the second-named Defendant so that this appeal is in the nature of a test case.

8 Section 4 of the Minimum Notice and Terms of Employment Act, 1973sets out the minimum notice which an employer must give to an employee in order to terminate the Contract of employment. Section 5 of the same Act deals with the rightsof an employee during the period of notice and provides, in particular, that the provisions of the Second Schedule to the Act are to apply during the period of notice.

9 Section 1 of the Second Schedule provides that during the period of notice the employee is to be paid by his employer in accordance with the terms of his contract of employment. Section 2 paragraph (a) sub-paragraph (1) of the same schedule provides as follows:-

"An employee shall be paid by his employer in respect of any time during his normal working hours when he is ready and willing to work but no work is provided for him by his employer."

10 Section 12 subsection (1) of the Act provides that if an employer fails in his duties to his employee under Section 4 or Section 5 of the Act the employee may refer the matter to the Tribunal for arbitration and the Tribunal...