FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : ST ENDA'S SPORTS COMPLEX (REPRESENTED BY MOORE STEPHENS PATRICK MCNAMARA ACCOUNTANTS AND BUSINESS ADVISORS) - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Duffy Employer Member: Ms Cryan Worker Member: Mr Shanahan |
1. Redundancy terms.
BACKGROUND:
2. St Enda's Sports Complex was founded in 1972 and is owned by St Enda's Community School on whose grounds it is located. Initially the facility was to be self-financing. In reality the Limerick Regeneration Agencies, Limerick City Council and the Department of Education and Skills have all made annual subventions and grants in order to keep the facility open and functioning.
However in late 2010 the Complex was deemed to be a health and safety risk and was closed forthwith with the 22 non-public servant Workers been made redundant. The Union is seeking an enhanced package, while the Company is claiming inability to pay above statutory redundancy package.
The 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 15th March, 2011 in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 21st April, 2011.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Workers were paid by the Department of Education and Skills, therefore it follows that they should be treated as Public Sector Workers. All outstanding arrears due under a Labour Court pay award should be paid immediately.
2. The enhanced package on offer should reflect the fact that this was not a voluntary redundancy and that the possibility of alternative employment for the Workers is somewhat remote.
BOARD'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The legal advice received by the Department of Finance is that the Workers do not have public servant status. The funds for the payment of an enhanced redundancy package above statutory, simply do not exist.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Workers associated with this claim have lost their employment in consequence of the withdrawal of funding by a Government Department. There have been a number of claims before the Court in recent times in which redundancy arose in similar circumstances. In all of these cases the Court recommended that ex-gratia redundancy payments be made to those affected. The Court can see no reasonable basis upon which those involved with the present claim should be treated differently.
The employment to which this dispute relates is more akin to a voluntary/community initiative than to a mainstream public service provider. In these circumstances redundancy settlements reached in the former type of employments provide a fairer reference point than that relied upon by the Union is advancing its claim.
The Court recommends that the Workers concerned be paid ex-gratia redundancy lump sum of two weeks pay per year of service, plus statutory terms, in full settlement of their claim. Having regard to the dependency of the employer of public funding, the Court further recommends that the parties cooperate in seeking to obtain the necessary resources to allow this recommendation to be implemented.
The Court further recommends that any outstanding payments due to the Workers be paid without further delay, and that those made redundant be considered for employment in the event of the complex reopening in the future.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Duffy
19th May, 2011______________________
JFChairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to John Foley, Court Secretary.