FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2001 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : WEXFORD COUNTY COUNCIL - AND - A WORKER (REPRESENTED BY SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION) DIVISION : Chairman: Ms Jenkinson Employer Member: Mr Grier Worker Member: Mr O'Neill |
1. Redundancy payments - 1 worker.
BACKGROUND:
2. The dispute relates to the redundancy terms offered to the worker who was employed on the Wexford County Council Jobs Initiative, Home Compositing Project. The Project started in March, 1999, and finished in September, 2002, at which time the worker was paid statutory redundancy. The Union is claiming that the worker should be entitled to a redundancy similar to that paid to the FAS Community Employment (CE) Supervisors. The Council's case is that while it did approve payment of the CE Supervisor pay scale (4th point) to the worker, she was never employed at that grade.
The dispute was referred to the Labour Relations Commission and a conciliation conference took place. As the parties did not reach agreement the dispute was referred to the Labour Court in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 25th of February, 2004. At the conciliation conference, the Council offered to pay the worker €3,000 but this was rejected by the Union which is seeking in excess of €7,000.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The worker had a role with far greater responsibility than a CE Supervisor. She should be paid at least the same severance package that the Council has applied to CE Supervisors.
2. The Council has continued to deny that the worker was a Supervisor, even though its own correspondence clearly stated that she was.
COUNCIL'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Council has at all times operated within the guidelines set down by FAS. The Job Initiative Scheme (JIS) guidelines clearly state that the level of redundancy on the cessation of JIS is at statutory level, and the Council made redundancy payments to the worker on this basis.
2. The application of any alternative rate of redundancy payment or an analysis of the roles of Work Supervisors on JIS compared to CE Scheme Supervisors is not a matter for the Council.
3. It was clearly understood by all that the worker's employment relationship with the Council was in the context of a participant on the JIS.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Union sought severance terms for a supervisor who had been employed on a Job Initiative Scheme. Comparisons were made with the severance terms negotiated at national level for CE Supervisors and Assistant Supervisors employed by Community Enterprise Schemes. In the absence of similar negotiations at national level for Supervisors employed by the Job Initiative Schemes, the Court recommends that the offer made at conciliation to pay the claimant a severance payment should be accepted by the Union.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Caroline Jenkinson
8th March, 2003______________________
CON/MB.Deputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Ciaran O'Neill, Court Secretary.