This article is from page 9 of the 2006-01-24 edition of The Clare People. OCR mistakes are to be expected so download the original SWF or the rendered page 9 JPG
A WORKER who was made redundant, only to see his job advertised two weeks later, brought his former employers, Schwarz Pharma before the Employment Appeals Tribunal.
But the company is claiming that former operative, Johnny Purtill, should hand back the €16,800, which he was paid in redundancy money, before his case can be heard.
The Tribunal heard that Mr Purtill was one of 120 people made redundant from the Shannon plant between 2004 and 2005 as part of a rationalisation plan. The company offered a voluntary redundancy package but when they could not achieve enough cuts, a number of employees, including Mr Purtill, suffered compulsory redundancy.
He was paid a total of €16,800 in redundancy payments and signed a waiver, the solicitor for Schwarz Pharma told the Tribunal.
She told the members of the Tribunal that the company is contending that Mr Purtill has no claim “as he signed a waiver which specifically said that the payment was in full and final settlement, after having the benefit of the advice of his union representative.”
And should the Tribunal allow the claim to go ahead, Mr Purtill should hand back the money he was paid as redundancy, the solicitor told the hearing.
Mr Purtill’s solicitor said that his client’s job was advertised just two weeks after he was compelled to leave. “We contend that he was made redundant on the basis of a misrepresentation,” the solicitor said.
“My client’s position was advertised shortly after he was let go and the two people taken on to fill his position were congratulated in the company newsletter.”
Mr Purtill said that “no sooner was he out the door than two people were taken on shortterm contracts without benefits such as holiday or sick pay.”
Schwarz Pharma’s representative said that the two people were taken on “to fill a shortterm need. Mr Purtill himself was offered a similar short term contract later in the year, which he turned down.”
The legal representative asked the Tribunal members to hold that Mr Purtill had no case or, should they decide there was a prima facia case to adjourn the matter until he had returned the money paid to him in redundancy.
The member of the Tribunal said they would consider the matter and issue a written decision to both parties.