FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 13(9), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : ISLAMIC CULTURE CENTRE (REPRESENTED BY MASON HAYES & CURRAN SOLICITORS) - AND - A WORKER (REPRESENTED BY SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION) DIVISION : Chairman: Ms Jenkinson Employer Member: Mr Doherty Worker Member: Mr Nash |
1. Appeal Of The Recommendation Of A Rights Commissioner R-056634-Ir-07
BACKGROUND:
2. The issue before the Court is an appeal of a Rights Commissioners Recommendation on behalf of the worker. The worker was employed with the Centre from 1997. Backed by funding from the Maktoum Foundation, he held a position as a teacher in the Muslim National School. In March 2007, the worker was informed by the Centre that he was to be made redundant as the Maktoum Foundation were no longer funding his position. The worker was offered statutory redundancy by the Centre. The Centre also informed him that the School wished to retain his services and employ him directly on the same terms and conditions which he had previously enjoyed. A meeting took place between the Union and the Centre in which the worker was given three options, which were rejected.
The issue was referred to a Rights Commissioner for investigation and recommendation. On the 27th March, 2008 the Rights Commissioner issued his Recommendation as follows:
"In making my recommendation I am acutely aware that the claimant finds himself in a most invidious and difficult personal position. I do not wish to exacerbate that position in any way. However I can't declare other than that the respondent is within its' rights to pursue the cessation of the employment relationship based on the wishes of the Maktoum Foundation, which is its' source of funding. I also wish to acknowledge that the respondent has attempted to meet the needs of the claimant insofar as it was able.
I recommend therefore that the three options available to the claimant (as outlined in the letter of the 7th of January 2008) be extended to accommodate a complete cessation of connection on the basis of five weeks pay per year of service exclusive of statutory redundancy."
On the 25th April, 2008 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 8th April, 2009.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1 The worker rejected the three options put to him by the Centre as he is adamant that he must retain his status as Head of Religion Department and teach in the Muslim National School but as an employee of the Maktoum Foundation.
2 The worker rejected being made redundant on the grounds that this was not a real redundancy situation. The Centre were divesting themselves of responsibility for the worker as the Maktoum Foundation would continue to fund the School.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1 The worker rejected the position and job offered on more than one occasion, with the result that a part time worker employed initially on a temporary basis while the claimant's position was under consideration, is now employed on a permanent basis to replace him in the Muslim National School.
2 The Centre believes that as the worker rejected the three options repeatedly made available to him, the worker is entitled to be paid his statutory redundancy following the termination of his employment.
DECISION:
The matter before the Court concerns an appeal of a Rights Commissioner’s Recommendation dealing with the claimant’s contention that he should not have been made redundant.
The Rights Commissioner found that the employer was within its rights to make the claimant redundant and acknowledged the efforts made to accommodate him in alternative roles and proceeded to recommend an enhanced redundancy payment as an additional option.
Having considered the oral and written submissions of both parties, the Court concurs with the Rights Commissioner’s findings that the employer was within its rights to make the claimant redundant and having examined the alternative employment options made to him, the Court is of the view that it had done all within its power to accommodate him. The Court notes that mediation attempts were thwarted due to factors outside the employer’s control.
In all the circumstances of this case, the Court is of the view that as alternative employment options are no longer available the most appropriate remedy is the payment of an enhanced redundancy payment and accordingly recommends that the employer should pay the sum of €30,000 (in addition to the statutory redundancy payment) in full and final settlement of the claim.
Therefore, the Rights Commissioner’s Recommendation is varied accordingly.
The Court so decides.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Caroline Jenkinson
23rd April,2009______________________
DNDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Decision should be addressed to David P Noonan, Court Secretary.