FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : 10 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS CAP AXIS COMMUNITY CENTRE ICRG NORTH CLONDALKIN CDP WEST TALLAGHT RESOURCE CENTRE PARTNERS TRAINING FOR TRANSFORMATION KILMORE WEST CDP LINK CDP UNIT 1 & 2 KILLARNEY COURT EQUAL ACCESS CDP SOUTHSIDE CDP - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION IMPACT DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Hayes Employer Member: Mr Doherty Worker Member: Ms Ni Mhurchu |
1. Redundancy terms.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Unions' case referred to the 10 CDPs and the Department of Community, Rural and Gaeltacht Affairs as being the employers. However, the Department did not attend the hearing stating that it was not the employer.
The issues involved the withdrawal of funding by the Department from the CDPs in January, 2010, and the subsequent redundancy of a number of staff. The CDPs claim that, because of the lack of funding, they can only pay statutory redundancy but believe that an enhanced redundancy would be appropriate.
The dispute was referred to the Labour Relations Commission (LRC) and a conciliation conference took place. As the parties did not reach agreement, the dispute was referred to the Labour Court on the 1st March, 2010, in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 1st April, 2010. The following is the Court's recommendation:
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court considered the submissions of both sides to this dispute. The employers indicated that they believed the Unions' claim for enhanced redundancy payments was a fair and reasonable one and that they would meet it if they had the resources to do so. They advised the Court that they were entirely dependent on funding from the Department to meet all their redundancy liabilities both statutory and ex-gratia. They noted that the Department had decided, through a process they considered flawed, unfair and inconsistent, to withdraw all of their funding and to make support for statutory redundancy payments contingent upon them legally dissolving their organisations. Some of the organisations indicated to the Court that they found this requirement oppressive and would have difficulties complying with it. Accordingly, they indicated that they could not meet any enhanced redundancy claim, or indeed Statutory Redundancy Entitlements, without support from the Department.
The Court notes the difficulties being experienced by the employers in their relationship with the Department. Any issues the employers have about the manner in which their funding has been withdrawn is not a matter for consideration by the Court. The Department was not in attendance at the Court as its relationship with the Community Development Organisations does not come within the normal definition of an "industrial dispute" as defined in the legislation under which the Court operates.
The Court, however, must also take into account the effect of these developments and the speed with which they have been visited upon the workers concerned, some of whom have very long and, what was acknowledged as, loyal and exemplary, service, with their respective employers. These workers are entitled, under statute, to have their claim for enhanced redundancy payments considered, on its merits, by the Court.
Having carefully considered the extensive submissions of all the parties concerned, the Court recommends that the workers being made redundant receive an enhanced redundancy payment of three weeks' pay per year of service in excess of their statutory redundancy entitlement. The Court notes that due to the financial circumstances of the organisations they do not have any funds of their own to pay this amount to their employees and, therefore, the Court further recommends that the parties should co-operate with each other in seeking funding to discharge the amount recommended.
The Court so recommends.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Brendan Hayes
4th May, 2010______________________
CONDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Ciaran O'Neill, Court Secretary.