Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD92270 Case Number: LCR13730 Section / Act: S26(1) Parties: DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE - and - IRISH CONGRESS OF TRADE UNIONS GROUP OF UNIONS |
Claim by the Unions for the payment of the Public Service Voluntary Early Retirement (V.E.R.) Scheme to workers being made redundant.
Recommendation:
5. The Court having taken account of the views expressed by the
parties finds that in the circumstances of this case the terms of
the Voluntary Retirement Scheme are not applicable.
The Court accordingly rejects the claim of the Union.
Division: MrMcGrath Mr Keogh Mr Rorke
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD92270 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR13730
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990
PARTIES: DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE
OFFICE OF PUBLIC WORKS
and
IRISH CONGRESS OF TRADE UNIONS GROUP OF UNIONS
SUBJECT:
1. Claim by the Unions for the payment of the Public Service
Voluntary Early Retirement (V.E.R.) Scheme to workers being made
redundant.
BACKGROUND:
2. The claim concerns approximately 57 workers who are employed
on the Monaghan Blackwater drainage scheme, due for completion in
November, 1992. The majority of the workers are being declared
redundant and have been offered statutory redundancy payments plus
pension entitlements. The Unions claim that the workers should be
offered the terms of the Public Sector Voluntary Redundancy/Early
Retirement Scheme (V.E.R.). The Office of Public Works and
Department of Finance rejected the claim. The issue was first
raised by the Unions at a meeting of the National Joint Industrial
Council (N.J.I.C.) for state employees, held on the 18th June,
1991. The matter was not resolved and the Union requested that
the dispute be referred to the Labour Court in accordance with
Section 11(a) Appendix C of the Constitution of the N.J.I.C.. The
Court investigated the dispute on the 19th June, 1992.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Unions have consistantly expressed the opinion at
meetings of the N.J.I.C., that workers on drainage schemes
should be entitled to the benefits of the Public Sector
(V.E.R.) package. This package has applied to all
redundancies in the Public Service since its introduction in
1988/89. The terms of the package are currently on offer to
established civil servants in a number of areas (details
supplied to the Court). The Unions understand that none of
the established staff employed in the Monaghan Blackwater
scheme will be made redundant. The Unions have always held
the view that the terms applying to industrial civil servants
should, in general, be no less favourable than those applying
to established civil servants.
2. The workers concerned are being made compulsorily
redundant by virtue of the cessation of a particular activity
(The completion of the drainage scheme). The normal practice
in industrial relations is that workers being made redundant
on a compulsory basis receive more compensation than workers
opting for voluntary redundancy. In this instance the workers
concerned are actually being offered less than those opting
for voluntary redundancy.
3. In a previous redundancy situation which arose on the
Bonet River drainage scheme in January, 1991, agreement was
reached to pay the public service (V.E.R.) package to the
workers on that scheme. Management secured sanction for
payment on the basis that payment on that occasion would not
be regarded as a precedent. The Union involved, on the other
hand, reserved its right to make a claim on a future occasion.
Such an occasion has now arisen.
EMPLOYERS' ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Office of Public Works and Department of Finance
rejected the Unions' claim at the N.J.I.C. on the basis that
since the Monaghan Blackwater drainage scheme was being fully
completed as planned there was no voluntary element to the
redundancies. The V.E.R. scheme is in general, no longer
available. It was introduced in 1987 to reduce staff numbers
among established civil servants in the Public Service and was
specially funded by the Government. When the required
reductions were achieved the scheme was withdrawn. If the
employers were now forced to give the V.E.R. terms to the
workers concerned they would have to meet the cost and could
not do so because the money is not available.
2. The employment on the scheme was essentially local in
character and the workers concerned did not have an
expectation of continued employment. They knew and accepted
that they were specifically employed for the duration of the
project. In undertaking drainage schemes, the O.P.W. is
performing work done by direct labour which alternatively
would be undertaken by contract. Such contractors would
employ workers for the duration of the work and would only pay
statutory redundancy terms to employees. It would be
unreasonable to expect the O.P.W. to make extra statutory
payments which would not be expected of comparable employers
in the Construction Industry.
3. The terms of the V.E.R. were paid to workers who worked on
the Bonet scheme because that scheme ended prematurely due to
financial and environmental considerations and the V.E.R.
package was appropriate in view of the special circumstances
of the case.
4. The majority of the workers concerned will receive a
substantial additional benefit on top of their statutory
redundancy payments in the form of an immediate pension lump
sum equivalent to two weeks' wages per year of service and a
deferred pension at age 65.
5. The cost of implementing the redundancy package amounts to
#160,000. The estimated cost of meeting the Unions' claim
would amount to an extra #300,000. This would be an
unjustified burden on the finances of the O.P.W. which would
jeopardise employment in other areas.
6. It is unreasonable to expect that the terms of the V.E.R.
scheme, introduced for specific purposes at a particular time,
would become the standard redundancy package in particular
employments. If this claim is conceded there are potentially
costly repercussions for other public sector employees.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. The Court having taken account of the views expressed by the
parties finds that in the circumstances of this case the terms of
the Voluntary Retirement Scheme are not applicable.
The Court accordingly rejects the claim of the Union.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Tom McGrath
____________________
10th August, 1992. Deputy Chairman
T.O'D./J.C.
Note
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to
Mr. Tom O'Dea, Court Secretary.