FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 20(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : KEVIN O'ROURKE TRADING AS LAURENCE K O'ROURKE - AND - GROUP OF WORKERS (REPRESENTED BY SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION) DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Hayes Employer Member: Ms Doyle Worker Member: Ms Ni Mhurchu |
1. Redundancy Payment
BACKGROUND:
2. The Branch Office System is operated by a Branch Managers on behalf of the Department of Social Protection and operate at 62 locations outside of Dublin in parallel with the Local Offices System, which is run directly by Civil Service Staff of the Department. The Branch Manager must be in a position to provide suitable premises and trained staff before he can be selected from a panel by the Department to give the service. When a Branch Manager resigns, retires (as in this instance), dies or has the contract terminated, the employment of all the staff terminates on the same date. The Branch Manager concerned in this case is due to retire on 31st July 2010 and all staff are offered statutory redundancy terms only which is unacceptable to the Union who are seeking an enhanced package.
On the 19th May, 2010 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 18th June, 2010. The Union agreed to be bound by the Court’s Recommendation.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS
3. 1. Those women forced out on a compulsory basis should receive redundancy terms greater than that provided for by statute.
EMPLOYER'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The retiring Branch Manager has no access to funds in order to make an ex-gratia redundancy payment neither has he any influence over Departmental decisions regarding the provision of continued service to the public.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court has carefully considered the submissions of both parties in this case. From the evidence presented to the Court it would appear that the nature of the business in this case is quite unusual. The Department of Social and Family Affairs advertises for suitable individuals to administer a number of its schemes. The successful applicant is responsible for providing suitable premises and staff to discharge this function both of which are subject to Departmental approval. In this case the Department is the sole source of income for the business. When contracts terminate they are readvertised. Staff may or may not be transferred to the new contractor. In the instant case it is intended to make them redundant on statutory entitlements only. The employer is pleading that he is not in a position to pay any amount in excess of Statutory entitlements.
The workers concerned have given many years of service and the Court recommends that they be paid three weeks pay per year of service in addition to statutory entitlements.
In light of the exclusive financial arrangements between the contractor and the Department of Social and Family Affairs the parties should jointly approach the Department to determine if funding is available to finance an enhanced redundancy payment and or secure the employment of the staff with the new contractor.
The Court so recommends.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Brendan Hayes
6th July, 2010______________________
JFDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to John Foley, Court Secretary.