FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : WEXFORD LOCAL DEVELOPMENT LTD - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Ms Jenkinson Employer Member: Mr Murphy Worker Member: Mr Nash |
1. Redundancy Terms.
BACKGROUND:
2. Between 2006 and 2009 the Department of Community, Rural and Gaeltacht Affairs undertook a process of reorganising the current complement of local development groups. In the county of Wexford, Wexford Area Partnership, the Wexford Partnership and WORD Ltd (Wexford Organisation for Rural Development) merged to form Wexford Local Development Ltd (WLD) on the 1st January 2009.
All staff of the three entities had their terms and conditions of employment transferred to WLD. A process of harmonising the three different sets of terms and conditions was concluded and agreed in May 2009.
In June 2009 Pobal, the funding agency for the Department, imposed a significant cut in the funding budget for WLD Ltd for the remainder of the year. Management proposed a reduction in staff numbers and reduced working hours for some remaining staff. A total of ten redundancies were proposed.
In February 2009 Pobal, as part of a cost-saving programme, agreed a severance package of statutory plus three weeks pay per year of service for its direct staff.
The Union saw this redundancy package as a benchmark set by the Department itself and indicated to Management that it would settle for those terms. Management agreed with the Union proposal and the Board approved the offering of an enhanced redundancy package.
A number of approaches were made to the Minister and others in relation to this matter but no offer of funding was forthcoming from either the Department of Community, Rural and Gaeltacht Affairs or Pobal.
The dispute could not be resolved at local level and was the subject of a conciliation conference under the auspices of the Labour Relations Commission. As agreement was not reached, the dispute was referred to the Labour Court on the 21st October, 2009, in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 16th March, 2010.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Union maintains that the Company is unable to pay the enhanced redundancy terms it is seeking due to the lack of funding available to the Company from Pobal.
2. The Union contends that the Department agreed improved redundancy terms to the staff employed in Pobal but will not support additional payment to WLD staff.
3. The Union contends that it is not reasonable to act in a manner that applies lesser terms to employees carrying out similar duties and responsibilities.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Company supports the concept of staff getting an enhanced redundancy package but that it cannot secure the funding for it from either Pobal or the Department of Community, Rural and Gaeltacht Affairs.
2. The Chairman and CEO of the Company made representation both in writing and in person to the Minister of Community, Rural and Gaeltacht Affairs in order to secure funding to enhance the redundancy payment but no funding was made available.
3. The Company is not allowed by its Funders to operate an overdraft or take out loans and therefore is not in a position to pay the enhanced redundancy sought by the Union.
RECOMMENDATION:
The matter before the Court is a claim for an enhanced redundancy payment of three weeks' pay per year of service in excess of the statutory redundancy payments already paid to those Workers who were made redundant from the organisation in 2009. Management told the Court that due to the cuts in its budget for both 2009 and 2010, it had no funds to pay an enhanced redundancy payment.
The Court notes that the organisation is funded by Pobal which itself had redundancies, the last as recent as January 2010, and has paid an ex-gratia redundancy payment each time.
Having considered the oral and written submissions of both parties, the Court recommends that an ex-gratia payment of three weeks' pay per year of service should be paid to those who have already been made redundant. The Court notes that due to the financial circumstances of the organisation it does not have the funds to pay this amount out of its own resources and therefore the Court recommends that the parties should cooperate with each other in seeking funding to discharge the amount recommended.
The Court so recommends.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Caroline Jenkinson
26th March, 2010______________________
MG.Deputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Madelon Geoghegan, Court Secretary.