FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 20(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : MARINE INSTITUTE (REPRESENTED BY IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION) - AND - A WORKER (REPRESENTED BY IRISH MUNICIPAL, PUBLIC AND CIVIL TRADE UNION) DIVISION : Chairman: Mr McGee Employer Member: Mr Grier Worker Member: Mr Nash |
1. Fixed Term Contracts, Employment Status And Victimisation
BACKGROUND:
2. The Marine Institute is a publicly-funded state agency charged with marine research and the commercial exploitation of Ireland's marine resources. The Worker was employed continuously by the Employer from February 2002 until March 2008, when his contract was not renewed. The Employer claims that the Worker was made redundant because the project on which he was working no longer existed. The Union, however, claims that the project continues to exist and that the Employer's actions are in breach of the Protection of Employees (Fixed Term Work) Act, 2003.
The Unions referred this case to the Labour Court on the 14th of May, 2008, in accordance with Section 20(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969. The Union agreed to be bound by the Court's Recommendation. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 9th of June, 2008.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Worker's work - both his core work and project work - continues to exist. The Employer moved two people, the day after the Worker was let go, to cover just one part of his work.
2. The Employer made other staff, some of whom had less service than the Worker, permanent..
3.The Employer's actions are in breach of the Protection of Employees (Fixed Term Work) Act, 2003.
EMPLOYER'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. In April 2005, the Worker secured a project-specific EU-funded post which would end in March 2008. This project no longer exists.
2. In January 2008, sanction for a similar post for another EU project has been sought from the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. While the Employer has not yet received a response from the Department, it is anticipated that the Worker would have applied for this post, if it is sanction.
RECOMMENDATION:
In considering this case solely under the Industrial Relations Acts, the Court notes and takes into account the following:
- the Institute's willingness to provide further employment to the Claimant
- the fact that a redundancy payment has been offered to, but not yet accepted by, the Claimant
- the apparent imminence of sanction from the present Department in regard to a further contract position in line with his skills and experience
The Court accordingly recommends that the Claimant be advised when sanction is received from the Department, in order that he may have the opportunity to complete for the new position.
There is nothing to prevent the parties re-engaging on any matters which remain unresolved between them regarding the Claimant's previous periods of employment with the Institute.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Raymond McGee
3rd September, 2008______________________
JMcCDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Jonathan McCabe, Court Secretary.