Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD93134 Case Number: LCR13985 Section / Act: S20(1) Parties: DUBLIN RAPE CRISIS CENTRE - and - THE IRISH MUNICIPAL PUBLIC AND CIVIL TRADE UNION |
Proposed redundancy of one worker.
Recommendation:
5. The Court is of the opinion that, in the circumstances now
prevailing in the Centre, it is entirely reasonable that the
worker concerned be required to work a full five-day week.
The Court therefore recommends that the worker accept the amended
hours of work, and that the Centre increase the offer of
compensation for the changing of conditions to a sum of #1,500.
Division: Mr O'Connell Mr Brennan Mr Walsh
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD93134 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR13985
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 20(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969
PARTIES: DUBLIN RAPE CRISIS CENTRE
(REPRESENTED BY THE IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION)
and
THE IRISH MUNICIPAL PUBLIC AND CIVIL TRADE UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Proposed redundancy of one worker.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Rape Crisis Centre was founded in 1977. It employs 13
workers, who are assisted by a trained volunteer group of 12.
They maintain a 24-hour crisis-line service for victims of rape
and sexual abuse.
The worker was employed by the Centre as a counsellor in
September, 1989. His appointment was on the basis of a 4-day
working week (27 hours) and his salary was aligned to the Eastern
Health Board scale for social workers.
In November, 1991, Eastern Health Board social workers were
awarded a pay increase of 25%, with full retrospection. The
Centre applied the pay award and the worker's salary increased to
#22,000. The Centre advised staff that it was prepared to pay
full retrospection provided that working hours were brought into
line with the Health Board (33 and 3/4 hours over five days).
The worker contends that he, like all counsellors, was appointed
on the basis of a four-day working week. The four-day week was to
take account of the stressful nature of the work performed by
counsellors in the Centre. The other counsellors working on a
four-day week basis have resigned their posts, and have been paid
full retrospection due.
In December, 1991 and January, 1992 meetings were held between the
Centre and the Union in relation to the five-day week and
retrospective payment.
No progress was made at the meetings, and the dispute was referred
to the Labour Relations Commission. A conciliation conference
took place on the 25th of February, 1992. On the 20th of June,
1992, at a meeting between Management and the Union, the worker
proposed to work an additional .50 hour/day. The Centre paid the
worker his full retrospection payment as a gesture of goodwill.
In January, 1993, the Centre decided that it could no longer
justify the 4-day counselling position. The worker was issued
with notification that his position was being made redundant as
and from the 26th of February, 1993 (extended to the 5th of March,
1993 at the request of the Court). He was advised that he could
avail of a five-day position at the Centre and that the Centre was
prepared to make him a once-off payment of #750 in respect of the
change to a five-day week.
The dispute was referred to the Labour Court by the Union, on the
18th of February, 1993, in accordance with Section 20(1) of the
Industrial Relations Act, 1969.
The Court investigated the dispute on the 24th of February, 1993.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The worker's position is not genuinely being made
redundant. The education and research work that the Centre
requires the worker to carry out on the fifth working-day
could be carried out within the present four-day week.
2. The Centre is trying, in a heavy-handed manner to enforce
a change in conditions of employment.
3. The redundancy notice is a breach of the Union's agreement
with the Centre, and should therefore be withdrawn. The
Agreement specifically requires that re-organisation of the
Centre be discussed and agreed with staff.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. All staff at the Centre, with the exception of the worker,
are employed on a full five-day week basis. It is reasonable
that the worker concerned work a five-day week also,
especially in view of the fact that he is the highest paid
member of staff at the Centre.
2. In view of the financial constraints on the Centre,
Management cannot continue to pay the Eastern Health Board
Social Worker five-day rate, for a four-day working-week.
3. The decision to make the position redundant is the
prerogative of management. If the Union or staff wish to
challenge that decision, then the appropriate forum for such a
challenge is the Employment Appeals Tribunal.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. The Court is of the opinion that, in the circumstances now
prevailing in the Centre, it is entirely reasonable that the
worker concerned be required to work a full five-day week.
The Court therefore recommends that the worker accept the amended
hours of work, and that the Centre increase the offer of
compensation for the changing of conditions to a sum of #1,500.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
John O'Connell
_________________
4th March, 1993. Deputy Chairman
M.K./J.C.
Note
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to
Mr. Michael Keegan, Court Secretary.