FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 20(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : DUBLIN WEST EDUCATION CENTRE - AND - A GROUP OF WORKERS (REPRESENTED BY IRISH MUNICIPAL, PUBLIC AND CIVIL TRADE UNION) DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Duffy Employer Member: Mr Doherty Worker Member: Ms Ni Mhurchu |
1. Compulsory Redundancy
BACKGROUND:
2. The issue before the Court concerns the redundancy of two workers. In November 2008 staff at the Centre were advised that there had been a serious reduction in income due to the economic downturn and that this could lead to reduced working hours or redundancies. From November to March 2009, a number of meetings between staff and management were called concerning the financial position of the centre. In March 2009 the employer announced that it would be proceeding with compulsory redundancy. It is the Unions argument that no details were given of the selection procedures and that the workers concerned were inappropriately selected for redundancy. It also contends that the employer did not meaningfully engage with the Union and that the workers should be considered as public servants. The company indicated in a letter to the Court that it would not be attending the hearing. The employers position is that the redundancies were implemented due to its worsening financial state.
On the 6th July, 2009 the Union referred the issue to the Labour Court, in accordance with Section 20(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 11th August, 2009. The Union agreed to be bound by the Court's Recommendation.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1 The employer failed to engage in meaningful discussions with its staff or with the Union in relation to its difficult financial position.
2 The selection criteria for redundancy was not a fair procedure. The Union contends that a bias towards another grade was shown in selecting one of the workers concerned and that the selection of the other worker concerned, as the last member of staff recruited, was to give credibility to the selection process.
3 It is the Union's contention that the workers concerned are public servants and that the Memorandum of Understanding should have been used as a mechanism of resolving this issue.
EMPLOYER'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1 The Centre met with the Union and agreed to attended the Labour Relations Commission and if necessary the Labour Court inside a suitable timeframe. As agreement could not be reached within the timeframe, and the centre's financial position worsening by the day, the Centre had no option other than to effect the redundancies in June.
RECOMMENDATION:
The employer did not attend the hearing but did communicate with the Court setting out its position on the subject matter of the dispute. The Court finds it regrettable that the employer did not attend and avail of the opportunity to explain its position further and to deal with the arguments advanced by the Union.
It appears to the Court that the employer in this case is a creature of statute and is involved in the provision of a public service. It would further appear that it is part of the public service and as such comes within the scope of the Memorandum of Understanding in Relation to Surplus Staff in the Public Service at Appendix B of the PNB.
The Court is satisfied, on the uncontested submissions of the Union, that the various options set out in the Memorandum of Understanding were not fully explored by the employer before deciding to implement the disputed redundancies.
The Court is also satisfied, again on the uncontested submissions of the Union, that there were no predetermined objective criteria against which selection was made for redundancy.
Having regard for the employers failure to apply the provisions of the Memorandum of Understanding referred to and the absence of any objective selection criteria, the Court is satisfied that the disputed redundancies were unfair.
The Court recommends that the Claimants be reinstated without loss of pay and that the parties resume discussion within the context of the Memorandum of Understanding in relation to surplus staff in the public service.
On the implementation of this recommendation the Claimant should refund any redundancy lump sums recieved from the employer.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Duffy
21st August, 2009______________________
DNDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to David P Noonan, Court Secretary.