FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : ARKLOW COMMUNITY ENTERPRISE LIMITED (REPRESENTED BY KEVIN STAUNTON, BARRISTER) - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Mr McGee Employer Member: Mr Grier Worker Member: Mr Nash |
1. Redundancy payments
BACKGROUND:
2. The Union's claim is for enhanced redundancy terms for 2 workers. The Company is involved in a wide range of support services to the people in the Arklow area who suffer forms of disadvantage. It employs a total of 9 full-time and 8 part-time staff and is managed by a Voluntary Board of Directors. In 2002 the Company entered into a service level agreement with the Health Service Executive (HSE) accepting responsibility for the administration and management of a new family support project known as the Arklow Springboard Family Support Service. In 2003 a creche was developed within the Springboard Service. Initially it was to cater for 6 children but in 2005 it was developed to cater for 12 children. However, the number of children admitted did not reach the anticipated level. A formal review took place in early 2008 and it was decided to close the creche, resulting in the 2 workers concerned being made redundant. The Company offered statutory redundancy only. The Union is seeking 5 weeks' pay per year of service inclusive of statutory.
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 on the 4th June, 2008, in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relation Act, 1969. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 19th August, 2008.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. Five weeks' pay per year of services inclusive of statutory is not unusual for redundancy terms within the Community Sector (the Union supplied a number of examples where similar terms were paid recently).
2. There is a clear responsibility on the employer and the funding body - in this case the HSE - to provide the workers concerned with reasonable redundancy terms.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Company had no choice but to close the creche. The number of days the creche was used dropped from 60 in 2006/2007 to 4-6 days in 2008. The Company offered every support it could to the two workers to find alternative employment.
2. The grant from the HSE is to provide for services for the most marginalised and vulnerable families and must be spent accordingly. The Company cannot pay anything over and above statutory entitlements. Funding to do so is not coming from the HSE
RECOMMENDATION:
It is clear to the Court that the work carried out by the creche run by Arklow Springboard is work delegated by the HSE and funded by it.
The Court recommends that the workers concerned receive severance terms of two weeks' pay per year of service in addition to statutory entitlements and that the Company obtain the necessary additional resources from the funding agent.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Raymond McGee
25th August, 2008______________________
CONDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Ciaran O'Neill, Court Secretary.