Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD87760 Case Number: LCR11524 Section / Act: S20(1) Parties: ORDER OF ST. JOHN OF GOD - and - MS. G. ROANTREE;MS. M. C. DAVIS |
Claim for enhanced redundancy payment.
Recommendation:
6. Having regard to the special circumstances in this case and in
particular the nature of the service provided by the workers
concerned the Court recommends that they be paid double the
statutory redundancy entitlement.
Division: Mr O'Connell Mr Collins Mr Devine
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD87760 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR11524
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 20(1)
PARTIES: HOSPITALLER ORDER OF JOHN OF GOD
(REPRESENTED BY THE FEDERATED UNION OF EMPLOYERS)
and
TWO WORKERS
SUBJECT:
1. Claim for enhanced redundancy payment.
BACKGROUND:
2. This claim concerns two part-time remedial teachers who worked
between 20 and 30 hours per week and who were made redundant by
the Order on 21st September, 1987. The workers were employed at
the Order's Child and Family Remedial Centre in Orwell Road,
Rathgar and had 19 years and 20 years' service respectively. The
Department of Education withdrew recognition of the centre from
31st August, 1987, "given that remedial teachers are now available
in most localities". The workers received statutory redundancy
payments as follows:
Worker A #2,326.94
Worker B #3,596.18
and also received lump sum payments in lieu of notice.
3. The workers claimed enhanced redundancy payment. The Order
did not consider it was in a position to negotiate the matter.
The workers referred their case to the Labour Court for
investigation and recommendation in accordance with Section 20(1)
of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969. The workers agreed prior
to the hearing to be bound by the Court's recommendation. A
Labour Court hearing was held on 3rd November, 1987. The Order
did not attend the Court hearing but did submit its comments on
the case to the Court.
WORKER'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The workers should be paid an increase in redundancy pay
to equate with the general terms agreed in the public
service.
4. 2. The commitment of both workers has not been recognised
during their employment. They did full-time work for
part-time pay, had unpaid holidays, no sick pay and no
pension contributions. They constantly updated their skills
and had personally to purchase books and equipment.
3. The Court in Labour Court Recommendation No. 10522
adjudged that one of the workers was "doing the equivalent of
full-time work.
4. The workers have little chance of re-employment at
present.
ORDER'S ARGUMENTS:
5. 1. In May, 1987 the Department of Education advised the
Order that, following a review of the Remedial Teaching
Scheme at Orwell Road and Tallaght it felt that the need for
the scheme no longer existed given that remedial teachers
were now available in most localities. The Department also
advised that recognition of the scheme would be withdrawn
from 31st August, 1987 and that no further grant aid would be
provided. Despite an appeal from the Order the Department's
decision stood. The Order was not in a position to continue
the scheme from its own resources and therefore the workers
were declared redundant.
2. The Order believes that it should not make any additional
payments to the individuals concerned for the following
reasons:-
(1) The Department of Education has not supplied any
monies for distribution as redundancy payments.
(2) The Department of Education has advised that the
State's redundancy/re-deployment package will not
be made available to the individuals concerned.
(3) The remedial teaching grant from the Department of
Education is a separate grant to that provided by
the Department of Health which is in respect of
the remaining services provided by the Order. It
would not be acceptable to the Order to fund
additional redundancy payments from monies
provided for Health related services particularly
at a time when such funding is severely
restricted.
(4) No precedent exists within the Order for making
payments in excess of statutory redundancy
entitlements.
(5) The Order is very concerned that any payment above
the statutory entitlement would be construed as a
precedent in the event of further terminations
within St. John of God.
RECOMMENDATION:
6. Having regard to the special circumstances in this case and in
particular the nature of the service provided by the workers
concerned the Court recommends that they be paid double the
statutory redundancy entitlement.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
John O'Connell
________________________
Deputy Chairman
16th November, 1987
T.O'M/J.C.