FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : COMMUNITY WORKERS CO-OP - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Ms Jenkinson Employer Member: Ms Doyle Worker Member: Ms Tanham |
1. Enhanced redundancy terms.
BACKGROUND:
2. The case concerns a dispute between the Community Workers Co-Operative and SIPTU in relation to a claim for enhanced redundancy. The Union is seeking enhanced redundancy of 3 weeks pay per year of service in addition to the statutory redundancy entitlement already paid. The Co-Operative's position is that the redundancies were implemented as a result of a cessation of funding from the relevant Government Department. The Co-Operative accepts the merit of the Union's claim but cannot concede it as there are no funds available to sustain the cost of the ex-gratia payments.
The issue 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 matter was referred to the Labour Court on 17th February 2012 in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 11th April 2012.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
2. 1. The accepted redundancy terms within the sector are three weeks pay per year of service in addition to statutory entitlements. The Union's claim is fair and in line with previous redundancies.
2. Despite the redundancies the workers remain in the organisation albeit on a voluntary basis. In such circumstances the claim has considerable merit and should be conceded.
MANAGEMENT'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The merit of the Union's claim is accepted and the commitment of the workers is acknowledged. The difficulty for the Co-Operative in applying the enhanced redundancy terms is that it does not have funding to pay the ex-gratia payment and has been refused funding from the relevant Government Department.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Union submitted a claim before the Court for an enhanced redundancy payment for two workers made redundant when the funding from the Department of Environment, Community and Local Government was withdrawn in June 2010. The Co-Operative accepted that the Union’s claim was fair but stated that it was not in a position to pay an ex-gratia payment due to the costs involved when the funding was withdrawn.
The Union sought three weeks’ pay per year of service in addition to the statutory redundancy payment already paid.
Having considered the submissions of both parties, the Labour Court is of the view that the ex-gratia payment sought is in line with the level of redundancy payments reached in analogues employments and accordingly recommends in favour of the Union’s claim.
Furthermore, the Court recommends that this Recommendation should be included in the national talks currently ongoing on this issue between the Department and the Union.
The Court so recommends.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Caroline Jenkinson
25th April, 2012.______________________
AH.Deputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Andrew Heavey, Court Secretary.