FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 20(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : VOLUNTARY DRUG TREATMENT NETWORK - AND - A WORKER (REPRESENTED BY SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION) DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Duffy Employer Member: Ms Cryan Worker Member: Ms Ni Mhurchu |
1. Worker made redundant and seeking enhanced 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 Voluntary Drug Treatment Network (VDTN) in May 2004. The VDTN is fully funded by the Department of Community, Rural and Gaeltacht Affairs. In 2008 the Department decided that the VDTN would merge with the National Voluntary Drugs Strategy. This led to the worker concerned being informed in January 2010 that she would be made redundant. At this time the Union met with the employer to seek clarification on whether funding was in position to pay the worker the rest of her contract which expired in May, 2010. The worker was made redundant in February, 2010. The Union are seeking an enhanced redundancy package of three weeks pay per year of service exclusive of statutory.
The employer's position is that due to financial constraints it is unable to pay the worker the remainder of her contract and is only in a position to pay statutory redundancy.
The issue could not be resolved at local level. The Union referred the claim to the Labour Court on the 10th November 2010, 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 the 8th December, 2010, the earliest date suitable to the parties.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1 The employer should have made representations to the Department with regard to funding the remainder of the worker's contract and also for an enhanced redundancy payment.
2 In Labour Court Recommendations No. 19755, No. 19786 and No. 19796, the court recommended an enhanced redundancy of three weeks pay per year of service exclusive of statutory for staff employed in organisations solely funded by the Department, who have been made redundant due to funding restrictions or closures of organisations.
3 The Union are seeking an enhanced redundancy in line with Labour Court Recommendations. The worker should be treated no less favourably than employees of similar organisations in the community sector who have been made redundant.
EMPLOYER'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1 The Company is not financially in a position to pay an enhanced redundancy to the worker.
2 In preparation for the process of wind down of the VDTN, the employer has carefully managed accounts so that a deficit could be avoided. The employer could have had more of a deficit but worked to ensure this was not the case so that statutory redundancy could be paid to the worker.
3 The worker recieved the company computer, mobile phone and was offered furniture. She was also offered external support in relation to CV and interview preparation
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court is 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 redundancy 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
10th December, 2010______________________
DNChairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to David P Noonan, Court Secretary.