FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : TRINITY COLLEGE (REPRESENTED BY IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION) - AND - IFUT DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Hayes Employer Member: Mr Murphy Worker Member: Mr Shanahan |
1. Alleged breach of Clause 1.6 of the Public Sector Agreement 2010-2014.
BACKGROUND:
2. This dispute arose from redundancy-related concerns of the Workers. The matter 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 9th December, 2011, in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 2nd April, 2012.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3 1 The Employer was in contravention of the Public Service Agreement which provides for a commitment that compulsory redundancy would not apply within the Public Service for the duration of the Agreement.
2 The Union’s members had achieved contracts of indefinite duration which, effectively, were permanent contracts with the College.
3 The contracts of indefinite duration were, therefore, protected under the Public Service Agreement.
EMPLOYER'S ARGUMENTS:
4 1 The appointments of the individuals in question were funded from external sources and the funding had now ceased.
2 The individuals were made aware in the letter of offer from the College that their appointment was at all times contingent upon the continuing availability of the funding which supports the post and, in the event that the funding ceases, then the post becomes redundant.
3. This had been the custom and practice for a number of years and pre-dated the PSA. It was also argued that Clause 1.6 provided for this and allowed for redundancies where existing exit provisions applied.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court has carefully considered the submissions of both sides in this dispute.
In coming to its conclusions, the Court has taken full account of the terms of the Public Service Agreement 2010-2014 as clarified by the National Implementation Body by letter 17th February 2012.
The Court has also examined and taken into account the detailed employment history of the claimants and in particular their individual contracts of employment.
In that context the Court finds that the claimants' individual employment history, for reasons specific to each of them individually, entitles each of them to rely on the commitment set out in Clause 1.6 of the Public Service Agreement 2010 - 2014.
The Court accordingly recommends that the respondent reinstate the claimants to their respective posts and manage any issues arising through the flexibility, redeployment and retraining provisions set out in the Agreement or as appropriate through a scheme of voluntary redundancy.
The Court so recommends.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Brendan Hayes
30th April, 2012______________________
COFDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Colm O'Flaherty, Court Secretary.