FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : RIGHT OF PLACE SECOND CHANCE LIMITED - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Ms Jenkinson Employer Member: Mr Murphy Worker Member: Ms Tanham |
1. Redundancy terms.
BACKGROUND:
2. The case before the Court concerns a dispute between the Employer and the Union on behalf of three of its members in relation to an enhanced redundancy package. The Employer operates a community-based facility which caters for and provides services to survivors of State-run Industrial Institutions and their family members. The organisation is funded mainly by the Health Service Executive (HSE) and is run by a voluntary Board of Directors. During the period from 2003 until 2010 the organisation operated a seperate facility known as Welcome House located in Cork, which provided temporary accommodation to Right of Place Second Chance members. The Claimants involved in this dispute previously provided care-taking and security services in the Welcome House facility. In 2010, the decision was taken to close Welcome House with all staff facing redundancy. The Employer contends that it is in a position to offer a redundancy package consisting solely of statutory entitlements. The Union on behalf of its members rejected the Employer's offer and primarily sought the option of redeployment for the staff members facing redundancy. The Employer reiterated its position and offered statutory entitlements only. The Union is now seeking an enhanced redundancy package of five weeks' pay per year of service inclusive of statutory entitlements. The Employer rejected the Union's claim and the dispute could not be resolved between the parties.
A Conciliation Conference was held under the auspices of the Labour Relations Commission. As agreement was not reached, the dispute was referred to the Labour Court on the 18th February, 2011 in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 3rd May, 2012.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Union contends that the redundancy package offered by the Employer is wholly funded by the HSE and is out of line with packages previously offered by the HSE.
2. The Union asserts that the Employer is in a position to fund an enhanced redundancy package given that funding was made available to expand the organisation following the closure of Welcome House.
3. The Union is of the view that an enhanced redundancy package is in line with customs and practices in the Community and Voluntary Sector in which the Employer operates.
EMPLOYER'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The redundancy package offered to the Claimants is funded solely by the HSE and consists of statutory entitlements only.
2. The Employer is not in a financial position to offer an enhanced redundancy package.
3. The Employer has complied with all legal requirements in offering the statutory redundancy payments to the Claimants.
RECOMMENDATION:
The matter before the Court concerns a claim for an ex-gratia redundancy payment by the Union on behalf of three workers made redundant in December 2010. The employer’s organisation is involved in the community and voluntary sector and is fully funded by the HSE. Management rejected the claim on the basis that it had no funds to pay an ex-gratia redundancy payment as all funding for the three posts had been withdrawn.
Having carefully considered the submissions of both parties, the Court recommends that in line with similar analogous employments the workers should receive an enhanced redundancy payment of three weeks' pay per year of service in excess of their statutory redundancy entitlement. The Court notes that due to the financial circumstances of the organisation it does not have the funds to make this payment and, therefore, the Court further recommends that the parties should co-operate with each other in seeking funding to discharge the amount recommended.
The Court notes that the workers concerned refused to accept the statutory payments and cesser holiday pay paid by Management at the time they were made redundant and therefore these payments remain outstanding and will be discharged by Management.
The Court so recommends.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Caroline Jenkinson
18th May 2012______________________
SCDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Sharon Cahill, Court Secretary.