FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2004 SECTION 20(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : NORTH MEATH DEVELOPMENT ASSOCIATION - AND - A WORKER (REPRESENTED BY SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION) DIVISION : Chairman: Mr McGee Employer Member: Mr Pierce Worker Member: Ms Ni Mhurchu |
1. Compensation / Reinstatement.
BACKGROUND:
2. The North Meath Communities Development Association (NMCDA) is a community and voluntary organisation run by a Board of Management. It has a staff of 9 who are involved in various socio-economic projects. The worker was employed as the General Manager in May 2000 having served as interim part-time manager for the previous 6 months. The Association claims that due to shortage of funds they had no choice but to issue a redundancy notice to the worker. The worker was given notice of his redundancy by registered post on 9th November, 2004.
The claim could not be resolved at local level. The worker referred the matter to the Labour Court on the 10th April, 2005 in accordance with Section 20(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969 on the grounds that there was an unfair selection for redundancy and no notice given. He agreed to be bound by the Court's recommendation. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 22nd July, 2005.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3.1 A bona fide redundancy situation did not exist in this case.
2. The worker was given no valid reason for his selection for redundancy. The Union maintains that it was because he had raised legitimate questions about the running of the organisation.
3. The worker was summarily dismissed in breach of the rules of natural and constitutional justice.
4. The Board did not apply the procedures contained in the ADM Human Resources Handbook
ASSOCIATION'S ARGUMENTS:
4.1 The Association continues to face problems culminating in the withdrawal of project funding by ADM in 2004. It had received funding for salaries and staff were required to go on a three day week.
2. The Association could no longer afford to employ a Manager in a situation where there was no work on the ground taking place. The Board reluctantly decided to make the worker redundant.
3. This step was taken only when the Board had no other choice.
4. A redundancy notice was sent by registered post on the 9th November, 2004 and a cheque written 26th November, 2004. The worker has not yet collected same.
RECOMMENDATION:
In all the circumstances of this case, the Court recommends that
(i) the claimant be paid his outstanding redundancy settlement.
- (ii) he be paid an ex-gratia lump sum of €1,000 in full and final settlement of all claims he has against North Meath Community Development Association
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Raymond McGee
31st August, 2005______________________
JBDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Jackie Byrne, Court Secretary.