FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 20(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : UCC - AND - A WORKER (REPRESENTED BY IFUT) DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Duffy Employer Member: Ms Doyle Worker Member: Mr Shanahan |
1. Ex - Gratia Redundancy
BACKGROUND:
2. The issue before the Court concerns a claim by the Union on behalf of its member for an enhanced redundancy payment. The Worker commenced employment with the University in June 2002. From December, 2003 to January, 2010 he was employed on a number of fixed-term contracts. The worker initiated a claim under the Protection of Employees (Fixed-Term Work) Act 2003 against the University. It was his claim that he was entitled to a contract of indefinite duration. The matter was considered by a Rights Commissioner and his decision was subsequently appealed to the Labour Court by the Union. The Labour Court issued Determination No. FTD1116 on this matter and found in his favour awarding him compensation. The Worker was made redundant before the Labour Court issued its Determination. The University's position is that the compensation awarded to him was in respect of his legal rights and loss of employment. The Union argue that the compensation awarded was in respect of breaches of the 2003 Act and does not cover his redundancy claim.
The Union referred the claim to the Labour Court on the 16th September, 2011, in accordance with Section 20(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969 and agreed to be bound by the recommendation of the Court. A Labour Court hearing took place on the14th December, 2011, the earliest date suitable to the parties.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1 There was no claim before the Labour Court regarding redundancy until this one. The previous Labour Court hearing concerning the parties was in respect of breaches of the Protection of Employees (Fixed-Term Work) Act 2003. The compensation awarded to the Worker concerned those breaches alone.
2 The basis of the Union's claim is that 4 weeks pay per year of service plus statutory entitlements is the standard payable in respect of redundancies in the Higher Education Sector.
EMPLOYER'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1 The Worker has already been awarded compensation by the Labour Court in respect of his legal rights and loss of employment. The Court was aware that the worker had been paid a statutory redundancy payment. The worker was awarded a compensation payment in excess of any payment that would have been made to him under the Redundancy payments Acts.
2 The University does not accept that the Worker is entitled to an ex-gratia payment.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Complainant previously brought proceedings under the Protection of Employees (Fixed-Term Work) Act 2003 and obtained an award of compensation in the amount of €20,000. In addition he recieved a statutory redundancy lump sum.
It seems clear from the Determination of the Court in that case that the fact that he had been made redundant was a factor which the Court took into account in measuring the quantum of compensation awarded to the Claimant. Having regard to the compensation already paid the Court does not consider that a justifiable case now exists for the payment of additional compensation by way of an ex-gratia redundancy lump sum.
In these circumstances the Court does not recommend concession of the Union's claim.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Duffy
15th December, 2011______________________
DNChairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to David P Noonan, Court Secretary.