FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : FINGLAS CHILD & ADOLESCENT CENTRE (REPRESENTED BY IRISH YOUTH JUSTICE SERVICES) - AND - SIPTU IMPACT DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Hayes Employer Member: Mr Murphy Worker Member: Mr Nash |
1. 1. Redundancy / Severance Package. 2. Disturbance.
BACKGROUND:
2. The case before the Court concerns issues arising from the imminent closure of the Finglas Child and Adolescent Centre. Following the findings of a inter-departmental working group, it was decided by Government to transfer operations from Finglas to the existing Oberstown Campus. The procedure to close the Finglas Centre began in 2009, including the transfer of staff and services. An offer of redundancy or redeployment formed part of discussions between the parties. Two issues remain outstanding between the parties; the redundancy package and disturbance. Regarding redundancy, the Unions are seeking six weeks pay per year of service inclusive of statutory entitlements and without capping. They are also seeking €3000 per employee transferring to Oberstown in recognition of staff co-operation in working to an orderly closedown of the Finglas Centre and the fact that Oberstown is 20 Kilometres from the Finglas location. The Company reject the Unions claims. Its position is that it has offered permanent jobs to staff, made numerous concessions and has fully met its obligations.
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 could not be reached, the dispute was referred to the Labour Court on the 10th March, 2010, in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 26th March, 2010.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1 The Unions reject Management's proposal for severance and redundancy on the basis of the offers inequity. The proposal discriminates against employees on the basis of age and the 52 week capping demonstrates a serious lack of recognition of the fact that those members of staff seeking severance and redundancy have either no pension entitlement or a very low pension entitlement.
2 The Department of Finance has in fact sanctioned payment of disturbance awards since 1983. It is the Unions position that such a gesture would go along way to addressing the goodwill deficit which has accrued amongst the Unions members over the conduct of the Company. The Union also views the circumstances of this claim as unique as the facility is approximately 20 Kilometres away from the Finglas location
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1 The Department of Finance approved the severance and redundancy offer which was put to the Union at the Labour Relations Commission Conciliation Conference. The reason the State cannot be more generous is because of the very difficult financial position of the State.
2 The Government decided in 1983 and effective from 1st January, 1984, that payments for disturbance in connection with relocations of places of work would no longer be made in the public service.
RECOMMENDATION:
As time is of the essence the Court has been asked to issue its Recommendation at short notice.
The Court has carefully considered the extensive oral and written submissions of the parties and recommends as follows:
Finglas Child and Adolescent Centre is closing its current location and transferring its functions and staff to a campus in Oberstown in Lusk Co. Dublin, currently occupied by three other institutions controlled by the Irish Youth and Justice Service. All Staff have been offered employment on the new site. The Court was advised that this will result in a surplus of staff at the new location. It was also acknowledged that some staff will not be able to avail of employment in the new location because it is relatively inaccessible.
The Court is satisfied from the submissions of both parties that a redundancy situation exists within the meaning of Section 7(2) of the Redundancy Payments Act, 1967 and that all staff with two years service are entitled to exercise their rights under this legislation. The Court has taken this into account in arriving at its Recommendation.
Redundancy / Severance Payments
The Court recommends that
- All staff with two years' service be offered a redundancy/severance package of five weeks' pay per year of service, inclusive of statutory entitlements, and subject to a maximum payment of two years' salary or the amount that would be earned to normal retirement date, whichever is the lesser
- All staff with less than two years' service be offered a pro rata severance package excluding statutory entitlements.
- As an alternative, staff between 50 and 60 years of age, be offered the opportunity to avail of the Incentivised Scheme for Early Retirement as outlined to the Court.
Staff aged 60 or over have additional entitlements under the Superannuation Scheme that may be exercised in the normal way and are not affected by the severance package outlined above.
Disturbance
The Court is not normally well disposed towards recommending compensation for disturbance arising out of the necessary relocation of premises and staff. However the Court was advised by both side that the new location in this case is not accessible by public transport, both the nearest bus stop and train station being several miles away from the centre. The Finglas Centre by comparison, is very accessible by public transport and is relied upon extensively by a number of the workers affected. Given these exceptional circumstances the Court believes a disturbance payment is appropriate to enable workers affected by the move to put in place arrangements for accessing their new place of work. The Court believes the sum of €2000 per person, payable on relocation and following co-operation with the smooth transition to the new campus, is reasonable in all the circumstances of this case.
The Court so recommends.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Brendan Hayes
29th March, 2010______________________
DNDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to David P Noonan, Court Secretary.