FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2004 SECTION 13(9), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : ST MUNCHINS ACTION CENTRE - AND - A WORKER (REPRESENTED BY SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION) DIVISION : Chairman: Mr McGee Employer Member: Mr Murphy Worker Member: Mr O'Neill |
1. Appeal of Rights Commissioner's Recommendation
BACKGROUND:
2. The Claimant was employed by St. Munchin,s Action Centre on a Job Initiative Scheme from May, 1997, to October, 2003, when he was made redundant. The Action Centre is a community-based project providing a variety of services to the local communities in areas in northern Limerick. The primary source of funding for the Centre's activities comes directly from grants received from FAS. The dispute before the Court concerns a claim by the Union on behalf of its member for the payment of enhanced redundancy terms. The redundancy arose as a result of reductions in Job Initiative places within the centre.
- The Union contends that there had been a number of earlier cases which were broadly similar to the position of the Claimants and the Union is now seeking the same entitlements of three weeks' pay per year of service in addition to statutory entitlements.
The Centre representatives contend that when they were informed that reductions had to be made to their staffing levels they informed FAS that as a voluntary based organisation, relying completely on Grant Aid to operate their project activities, they would not be in a position to pay any Statutory Redundancy Entitlements to the Claimant. FAS agreed to pay statutory payments through the centre under a formula worked out by FAS.
The matter was referred to a Rights Commissioner for investigation and Recommendation. His findings and Recommendation issued on the 2nd September, 2005, as follows:
- "Based on the evidence before me, I am satisfied that St Munchins Action Centre was the employer at the time of his redundancy and that any monies due to him should be paid to him by that body in the first instance. While I can sympathise with any sponsoring body caught up in a situation like this, the fact remains that the worker was made compulsorily redundant and is entitled to an appropriate redundancy payment.
A significant number of similar claims were submitted by SIPTU to the Rights Commissioner Service in 2003 and 2004. Following the Hearing of the worker's claim, I was informed by SIPTU that they were attempting to establish a nationally agreed formula with FAS for dealing with these claims and I agreed to allow some time for progress on this issue at a national level.
It would now appear that no such formula has been agreed, or is ever likely to be agreed. Whether this is as a result of SIPTU failing to put sufficient pressure on FAS or of FAS ignoring all such pressure does not seem to me to be an important issue at this stage. The reality is that the worker and the other claimants have been treated very badly by FAS in this regard and it is well past time for all these cases to be finalised.
In the circumstances, I am fully satisfied that the union's claim was a reasonable one and I now find accordingly.
Recommendation
I therefore recommend that St Munchins Action Centre should make a redundancy payment to the claimants amounting to three weeks pay per year of service, to be paid in addition to his statutory entitlements".- The worker was named in the Rights Commissioner’s Recommendation.
On the 10th October, 2005, the Union appealed the Rights Commissioner’s Recommendation to the Labour Court in accordance with Section 13(9) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 22nd March, 2006.
- The worker was named in the Rights Commissioner’s Recommendation.
3. 1. The development of the community and voluntary sector has always been supported by this Union and it recognises the dilemma facing the employer in the current circumstance because of its limited funding. However, the state agencies cannot be allowed to walk away from their responsibilities to both the sponsors and the worker in the current situation. It is the Government who introduced the cut-backs within the Job Initiative Programme and it is the Government that should be funding the redundancies that have arisen as a direct result of the decisions taken.
2. The Enhanced Redundancy Package, as recommended by the Rights Commissioner, should be paid by the state through FAS. This is the only mechanism that would provide a suitable remedy to the Claimant in securing a meaningful redundancy package to compensate him for the loss of his job.
CENTRE'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. St. Munchin's Centre formed the view that because FAS undertook this financial responsibility for Statutory Redundancy Payments they should therefore assume the same responsibility for any subsequent claims for Enhanced Payments.
2. The Centre wrote to FAS requesting them to meet the cost of the Rights Commissioner's Recommendation. FAS responded to the request stating that there was no provision for them to pay Enhanced Redundancy Payments to Job Initiative participants. While the Centre has great sympathy for the Claimant, its position remains unchanged, in that its financial circumstances does not allow it the latitude to use its Grant Aid towards costs of this nature.
DECISION:
Having considered the submissions made by the parties at the Court hearing it is the view of the Court that the Claimant should receive enhanced redundancy payments of three weeks' pay per year of service in addition to statutory redundancy entitlements, as recommended by the Rights Commissioner.
The Court so decides.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Raymond McGee
13th April, 2006______________________
JO'CDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Decision should be addressed to Joanne O'Connor, Court Secretary.