FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : QUARRYVALE COMMUNITY HOUSE CDP - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Duffy Employer Member: Mr Doherty Worker Member: Mr Nash |
1. Enhanced Redundancy Terms.
BACKGROUND:
2. This dispute concerns a claim for enhanced redundancy terms for three Workers employed by the Quarryvale Community Development Project, which was solely funded by the Department of Community, Rural & Gaeltacht Affairs. The Union is seeking three weeks' pay per year exclusive of statutory entitlement, but the Department refuses to provide the Employer with funding for any redundancy payment. This 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 3rd December, 2009, in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 28th April, 2010, the earliest date suitable to the parties.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1.Quarryvale Community Development Project was forced to close as a direct result of a reduction in funding from the Department.
2. The Workers provided years of loyal and hard-working service.
3.The Department must accept that it has a moral obligation towards these Workers.
EMPLOYER'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1.The Employer would conceed this claim if it had the necessary funding.
2.Quarryvale Community Development Project was funded solely by the Department.
3.The Department has declined to provide any additional funding for redundancies.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court is fully satisfied that the Union's claim for a redundancy payment of three weeks pay per year of service, exclusive of statutory terms, is reasonable and in line with settlements reached in similar employments. Accordingly the Court recommends that the Union's claim be conceded.
The Court notes that the only basis upon which the employer is resisting the Union's claim is the absence of funding out of which the claim can be met. The employer is a fully funded agency and the redundancies giving rise to this dispute arose in direct consequences of the withdrawal of funding. While the Court cannot direct any recommendations to the Department, which is not party to the dispute before the Court, the parties should jointly approach the Department with a view to obtaining the necessary funding so as to allow this recommendation to be implemented.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Duffy
6th May, 2010______________________
AH/JMcCChairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Jonathan McCabe, Court Secretary.