FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 20(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : DARA RESIDENTIAL SERVICES LIMITED - AND - SIX NAMED INDIVIDUALS (REPRESENTED BY PSYCHIATRIC NURSES ASSOCIATION) DIVISION : Chairman: Ms Jenkinson Employer Member: Mr Murphy Worker Member: Ms Ni Mhurchu |
1. Enhanced Redundancy Package.
BACKGROUND:
2. Dara Residential Services Limited, which has charitable status, is a small disability service currently running four community houses in Celbridge Co. Kildare. A strategic plan was implemented which in turn led to a restructuring process aimed at improving the running and administration of the houses. This plan involved a change in core working hours which does not suit the staff and caused the Nurses to opt for a redundancy package instead. The amount of redundancy payable is the issue at the core of the dispute.
On the 27th November, 2008, 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 29th January, 2009.
The Union/Workers agreed to be bound by the Court’s Recommendation.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Nurses have given high quality service over many years and will find it difficult to find alternative employment with the same amount of flexibility required as these are 'working mothers' and for some working full-time would have a negative impact on their family commitments .
2. The clients/patients are employed in workshops during the day so there is really no need for a full-time presence of staff during normal business hours.
3. The Claimants have no idea of the current financial position of the Company, but the HSE could be approached, if necessary, for funds to allow the required enhanced redundancy package deal to go ahead.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The HSE funds 99% of the running costs of Dara Residential Services Ltd. and as there is no contingency fund or asset base it has proven difficult to raise the funds required to pay the Claimants even the statutory redundancy payments sum.
2. All the Claimants were offered alternative positions on higher salaries and on the same terms and conditions otherwise but they chose instead to seek an enhanced redundancy package.
3. The Company has done as much as it can financially to improve the offer to the Claimants without putting the needs of people with disabilities at risk.
RECOMMENDATION:
The matter before the Court submitted by the Union on behalf of six part-time Clinical Nurse Managers I (CNM Is) concerns a claim for an enhanced redundancy package following Management’s decision to restructure its services.
The Employer failed to attend the hearing to investigate the Union’s claim, however, a written statement setting out its position was furnished to the Court.
The Union submitted that the restructuring of services resulted in the six Claimants being made redundant. Management offered them alternative employment as Team Leaders on the higher Social Care Leader Scale. However, the Union stated that these offers were unacceptable to the Claimants as they would no longer be employed as Nurses, their conditions of employment would change and, instead of managing the service, they would be required to manage a house.
Management disputed the contention that the CNM Is managed the service and stated that the Centre is not a nursing home and it retains a dedicated full-time Service Manager who is a qualified nurse on the CNM I scale to oversee health needs.
Having considered the position of both sides, the Court considers it of major significance that the Claimants were offered alternative positions with higher salaries while maintaining their entitlement to work part-time hours.
In all the circumstances of this case the Court recommends that a severance payment of three weeks’ pay per year of service inclusive of statutory redundancy payments should be paid and it urges the funding authority to make the necessary financial resources available.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Caroline Jenkinson
13th February, 2009______________________
JFDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to John Foley, Court Secretary.