FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 20(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : IRISH REFUGEE COUNCIL - AND - A WORKER (REPRESENTED BY SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION) DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Duffy Employer Member: Ms Cryan Worker Member: Ms Ni Mhurchu |
1. Employee seeking same redundancy terms as 3 other employee's
BACKGROUND:
2. The issue before the court concerns a claim by the Union on behalf of its member for an enhanced redundancy payment. The worker was employed as a Finance and Administration Officer from November 1999 until being made redundant in September, 2009. It is the Union's claim that she was made compulsorily redundant and that her Employer refused to consider, discuss or negotiate an enhanced redundancy package, as is standard practice in this area. The Employer's position is that due to its financial position it is unable to offer anything above the minimum statutory terms of redundancy.
The issue could not be resolved at local level. The Union referred the claim to the Labour Court on the 9th November 2010, in accordance with Section 20(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969 and agreed to be bound by the recommendation of the Court. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 8th December, 2010, the earliest date suitable to the parties.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1 In 2007 staff at another office of he Employer were made compulsorily redundant and were offered statutory redundancy plus 6 weeks per year of service. The Union are seeking identical terms including a similar exit training package for its member.
2 The worker was made redundant with no consultation or alternatives being offered. It is standard industry practice to compensate the redundant worker with an enhanced redundancy package.
3 It is unacceptable to treat one employee less favourably than her colleagues under the same circumstances.
EMPLOYER'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1 Management met with the worker at the time the decision was made to make some staff redundant. There was no agreement to pay an enhanced redundancy.
2 The redundancies that occurred in 2007 were because of a change in strategy and a re-focusing of the organisation's work. In that case an enhanced redundancy package of 3 weeks per year of service plus statutory redundancy was paid. In 2009, the redundancies are the result of a financial crisis within the organisation. The redundancies were necessary to save the organisation.
3 An enhanced redundancy package was considered by management even though there was no agreement to do so. The funders of the organisation were approached but were unable to assist in this matter.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court notes that considerable differences exist between the parties as to the level of ex gratia redundancy paid to those previously made redundant by the Council. However, the Court does not believe that the level of redundancy payments claimed by the Union, even if previously conceded, could be regarded as either attainable or reasonable in present circumstances.
Equally, while accepting that the Council is experiencing funding difficulties its position as presented to the Court is out of line with that of similar voluntary organisations which have been forced to implement redundancies in similar circumstances.
Having regard to all relevant considerations the Court recommends that the Council should offer a redundancy payment equal to three weeks pay per year of service in addition to the Statutory terms already paid.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Duffy
10th December, 2010______________________
DNChairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to David P Noonan, Court Secretary.