FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : ST CATHERINE'S COLLEGE OF EDUCATION/ DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION (REPRESENTED BY DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION AND SCIENCE) - AND - IRISH FEDERATION OF UNIVERSITY TEACHERS DIVISION : Chairman: Ms Jenkinson Employer Member: Mr Doherty Worker Member: Ms Ni Mhurchu |
1. Alleged unfair treatment on closure of college
BACKGROUND:
2. This case concerns a dispute between St Catherine's College of Education and the Irish Federation of University Teachers (IFUT) in relation to alleged unfair treatment of four staff members following the closure of the college.
St Catherine's College specialised in training Domestic Science Teachers but was closed by the Department of Education following a review of its operations. All courses that had begun were completed prior to its closure in 2007.
The issue in dispute concerns the Union's claim that four staff members (three academic staff and a librarian) were not facilitated with adequate redeployment options, following the decision to close the college. The Union further contends that the staff in question enjoyed tenure of employment and had a reasonable expectation to remain in work until normal retirement age.
Management rejects the claim on the basis that it made every effort to facilitate all employees. It contends there was early retirement (with added years service given and immediate payment of pension and lump sum), voluntary redundancies and re-deployment option available, which were availed of by many other staff members. It is also management's position that the claimants in this case did not actively respond to its correspondence in relation to suitable redeployment options.
The dispute could not be resolved at local level and was the subject 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 4th June, 2008 in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on 7th August, 2008.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3 1 There was very little effort made in relation to the re-deployment of the claimants. There were many different members of management involved in this issue and all have failed to adequately address the needs of the claimants.
2 The claimants were tenured employees who had a reasonable expectation to remain employed until retirement age. Management failed to acknowedge this and to secure reasonable redeployment options for them.
3 The claimants had only the options of early retirement or voluntary redundancy after the closure on the basis of Management's failure in relation to the redeployment. This is unacceptable.
4 The claimants have been badly treated and the claim for a years' salary is fair and reasonable in the circumstances
MANAGEMENT'S ARGUMENTS:
4 1 Management made every effort to secure redeployment options for the claimants.
2 The claimants did not furnish Management with their specific redeploymet options within the required timeframe and as a result were removed from the payroll.
3 There were also voluntary redundancy and early retirement options available. Some staff members accepted these options and others were successfully redeployed to other posts within the Department and funded on a supernumery basis.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Union’s claim concerns the treatment of the four claimants when St. Catherine’s College closed in 2007. It maintains that they should be paid compensation of one year’s net salary for having being compulsorily removed from the payroll and forced into early retirement. The Union maintained that the claimants held tenure of employment and in those circumstances therefore, the efforts made by the Department of Education were insufficient to assist them secure suitable alternative employment.
The Department disputed the Union’s contention that the claimants had guaranteed employment but it did accept that their status as employees of the College entitled them to an expectation of employment until their normal retirement age, (unless terminated for misconduct or incompetent reasons). It held that every effort had been made to find suitable alternative employment but that the claimants had not actively engaged in the process and consequently, on the closure of the College, there was no further employment available for them.
Having considered the oral and written submissions of both parties, the Court is of the view that there was a level of inadequacy in the Department’s role in assisting the claimants to fully explore their potential for re-deployment and the threat to remove them from the payroll delivered in July 2007 was unfair in the circumstances. Accordingly, the Court recommends that a payment of €15,000 should be paid to each of the four claimants in this case.
The Court so recommends.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Caroline Jenkinson
25th August 2008______________________
AHDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Andrew Heavey, Court Secretary.