FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2004 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : MAYFIELD EMPLOYMENT ACTION GROUP - AND - IRISH MUNICIPAL, PUBLIC AND CIVIL TRADE UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Duffy Employer Member: Mr Murphy Worker Member: Mr O'Neill |
1. Enhanced Redundancy Package
BACKGROUND:
2. This case concerns a claim for an enhanced package for two former employees of the Mayfield Employment Action Group (MEAP). The MEAP was established in the early 1990s to encourage long term unemployed individuals to return to re-engage in the workplace or education. Funding for the project was provided by FÁS through the Cork City Partnership Ltd. Funding ceased in 2005 and the two workers were made redundant on a compulsory basis.
The Union is seeking an enhanced redundancy package of four weeks' pay per year of service in addition to statutory entitlements already paid. The Union's position is that enhanced redundancy packages are the norm for community based employments.
The MEAP's position is that it accepts the merit of seeking enhanced redundancy terms for the two former employees but is unable to pay the enhanced terms on the basis of a lack of funding.
The issue could not be resolved at local level and was the subjet of a Conciliation Conference under the auspices of the Labour Relations Commission. As agreement was not reached the matter was referred to the Labour Court on 1st March, 2006, in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on 18th October, 2006, the earliest date suitable to the parties.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Union's claim for an enhanced redundancy package of four weeks pay per year of service is fair and reasonable in the circumstances. There have been many enhanced redundancy packages in the voluntary and community based sector in similar circumstances.
2. It is the responsibility of the agency providing funding to ensure that in the event of redundancies, enough funding is in place to provide enhanced terms to the workers.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. It is accepted that the roles undertaken by the former employees of the MEAP were of equal importance to the role of Community Employment Supervisors and that there is merit in the claim for an enhanced redundancy package. It is, however, impossible to apply enhanced terms in this case as funding is not available.
RECOMMENDATION:
The redundancy package sought by the Union is not unreasonable and is in line with settlements reached in similar circumstances elsewhere in the Community anVoluntary Sector.
The Court can see no reason as to why the Claimants in this case should be treated less favourably. Accordingly, the Court recommends that the Union's claim be conceded.
The Court is aware that this Recommendation can only be implemented if the employer is put in funds by the appropriate agency. The Court therefore recommends that the parties jointly approach that agency with a view to obtaining the necessary funding.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Duffy
3rd November 2006______________________
AHChairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Andrew Heavey, Court Secretary.