FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 20(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : AMERICAN COLLEGE DUBLIN (REPRESENTED BY IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION) - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Duffy Employer Member: Ms Cryan Worker Member: Mr O'Neill |
1. Claim for Improved Redundancy Payment
BACKGROUND:
2. The issue before the Court concerns a claim by the Union on behalf of 5 members formerly employed in the Psychology Department of the American College Dublin in relation to an improved redundancy payment . As a result of the closure of the Psychology Department, the 5 Union members were made redundant receiving statutory redundancy entitlements. In 2008, a Labour Court hearing took place in relation to 6 English teachers that were made compulsory redundant as a result of the closure of the English school at the College. Labour Court Recommendation No. 19323 recommended a redundancy package consisting of 5 weeks pay per year of service inclusive of statutory payments.
The Union is seeking an extension of Labour Court Recommendation No.19323 to cover the 5 individuals in this claim. The Employer argues that due to the current economic situation they are not in a financial position to pay any amount above statutory entitlements.
On the 9th August, 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 25th November, 2010.
The Union agreed to be bound by the Court’s Recommendation.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Employer is citing similar arguments in relation to its financial position as per the Labour Court hearing in 2008.
2. Following the Labour Court hearing in 2008, the Employer subsequently applied the redundancy package as recommended inLabour Court Recommendation No.19323. There were no departmental closures or job losses incurred as a result.
3. The Employer made no visible effort to ensure the viability of the Psychology Department and the retention of the 5 employees concerned in this claim.
EMPLOYER'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Employer has experienced further financial deterioration since 2008 and is currently not in a financial position to pay redundancy payments above statutory entitlements.
2. Any redundancy payment above statutory entitlements could potentially jeopardise the employment situation of current remaining staff in the College.
3. The Employer was not in a financial position to pay the required amount to ensure the continuity of the Psychology Department and is therefore not in a position to pay a redundancy package that would amount to twice that of the funding required initially.
RECOMMENDATION:
Having considered the submissions of the parties the Court can see no compelling reason as to why it should depart from its previous Recommendation on redundancy terms within this employment.
In these circumstances the Court recommends that the Claimants be paid an ex-gratia lump sum equal to three weeks pay per year of service in addition to statutory terms.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Duffy
26th November 2010______________________
SCChairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Sharon Cahill, Court Secretary.