FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : CLONTURK HOUSE (REPRESENTED BY IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION) - AND - IRISH MUNICIPAL, PUBLIC AND CIVIL TRADE UNION IRISH NURSES ORGANISATION) DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Duffy Employer Member: Mr Doherty Worker Member: Mr Nash |
1. Redundancy compensation.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Claim by the Unions is for an enhanced redundancy payment for nine workers who were made redundant in May, 2009. The workers have varying lengths of service, from three years to thirteen years. Clonturk House was originally under the aegis of the Rosminian Fathers but the service transferred to St. Joseph's Centre for the Visually Impaired Limited in March, 2008. Following the transfer in 2008, a number of surveys of the House were made and the result was that structural defects of the roof meant that the House would have to close. At that stage there were 24 employees of whom 15 accepted redundancy terms on offer. The remaining 9 workers are those involved in the present claim. The House's offer is for statutory redundancy plus €500 per person. Management's case is that the funding for the all services provided by the House was paid entirely by the HSE but the HSE will not provide any additional funding for an enhanced redundancy package.
The dispute was referred to the Labour Relations Commission and a conciliation conference took place. As the parties did not reach agreement, the dispute was referred to the Labour Court on the 1st September, 2009, in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 5th February, 2010.
UNIONS' ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The workers involved in the claim are long-serving members of the House and have been lauded as providing the highest standard of care for the residents. They had every indication that their employment would continue until the redundancy announcement was made.
2. It is unfair for the HSE, which has always funded the House, to state that it cannot contribute to the additional funding for the redundancies.
HOUSE'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The House cannot afford to pay enhanced redundancy payments. The HSE has stated clearly that it will not be providing any additional funding. St. Joseph's is also in a very difficult financial situation but it agreed to fund the statutory redundancies from its own very limited resources.
RECOMMENDATION:
Having regard to all the circumstances of this case the Court believes that the Union's claim for a redundancy payment of five weeks pay per year of service, inclusive of statutory terms, is reasonable and ought to be conceded. The Court so recommends.
It is noted that the employer was fully funded by the HSE and the service which it provided is within the general remit of the HSE. At the hearing a compelling case was advanced as to why the HSE should make a significant contribution to the resolution of this dispute. While the HSE were not represented at the hearing, and the Court does not have the benefit of hearing their views on the matter, it appears that it would not be unreasonable to expect the HSE to make such a contribution.
The Court further recommends that the parties jointly approach the HSE for the purpose of seeking sufficient funding so as to put the employer in a position to implement this recommendation.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Duffy
15th February, 2010.______________________
CON.Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Ciaran O'Neill, Court Secretary.