FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : TRINITY COLLEGE DUBLIN - AND - A WORKER REPRESENTED BY IRISH FEDERATION OF UNIVERSITY TEACHERS DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Duffy Employer Member: Ms Cryan Worker Member: Mr Shanahan |
1. An alleged breach of clause 1.6 of the Croke Park Agreement.
BACKGROUND:
2. This dispute concerns an alleged breach of clause 1.6 of the Croke Park Agreement. This 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 11thSeptember 2013, in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990.
A Labour Court hearing took place on the 21stNovember 2013.
UNION’S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Claimant has sixteen years’ service with the University. The Claimants role was in research but she also lectured and did other mainstream work. The University funded her work for approximately the last three years up to the termination of her employment in September 2012.
2. The Claimant had a contract of indefinite duration and was not offered any alternative posts prior to termination. She is protected from compulsory redundancy under the Public Service Agreement and should be redeployed on the same terms and conditions.
EMPLOYER'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Claimant was employed as a Research Assistant in the University since 1996 and her post was funded from non-core research sources.
2. The Claimant was informed in June 2012 that the project was coming to an end and that no alternative positions were available. The Claimant was paid her statutory redundancy in September 2012.
3. In November the University continued to look for work for the Claimant and on the 5thNovember she took up the post Administration Officer 2, and was paid at point 5 of that scale. In February 2013 the Claimant applied for and was successful at a competition for an Administrative Officer 1 post. She is currently on point 1 of that scale.
RECOMMENDATION:
The essential question posed in this case is whether the University was entitled to terminate the Claimant’s employment on grounds of redundancy, having regard to the terms of the Public Service Agreement 2010-2014. The University contends that the Claimant’s former role came within the exemption contained in the Agreement which allows for compulsory redundancy in respect of types of posts where redundancy terms have been agreed or generally applied.
The Court is not satisfied that the Claimant came within this exemption. Her post was not externally funded in at least the latter period of her employment. Nor was she exclusively engaged in research. Her length of service with the University (16 years) was also such as to place her outside the type of circumstances in which the exemption could reasonably be held to apply.
It is of particular significance that a suitable post was available within the University into which the Claimant was subsequently re-employed some five weeks after being made redundant. In the Court’s view the Claimant should have been redeployed into that post at the time the requirement for her former role ceased.
In the circumstances of this case the Court recommends that the Claimant should now be treated as if she had been redeployed into her present position, as a permanent employee of the University, without loss of service and on her original rate of pay and other conditions. This should be given effect from the date on which she was made redundant. The Claimant should also be paid appropriate arrears of salary and she should return the redundancy lump sum which she received.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Duffy
CR______________________
22nd November, 2013.Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Ciaran Roche, Court Secretary.