FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : PAVEE POINT TRAVELLERS CENTRE - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Hayes Employer Member: Mr Murphy Worker Member: Ms Ni Mhurchu |
1. Enhanced redundancy terms.
BACKGROUND:
2. This case concerns a dispute between Pavee Point Travellers Centre and SIPTU in relation to receiving the appropriate funds to pay enhanced redundancy payments. The Union contends that statutory redundancy was paid to the worker on the cessation of her employment but the agreed ex gratia payment was not sanctioned for payment by the funding authorities.
Management's position is that the ex gratia redundancy package was agreed but funding remains an issue from the relevant funding authorities
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 7th August 2013 in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990.
A Labour Court hearing took place on the 17th October 2013.
UNION'S ARGUMENT:
3. 1. The agreed enhanced redundancy terms have not been paid to the worker. The employer (Pavee Point Travellers Centre) paid the statutory entitlements and a commitment was given by the funder to pay the enhanced terms but these were ultimately not sanctioned for payment.
EMPLOYER'S ARGUMENT:
4. 1. The employer acknowledges the enhanced redundancy terms but funding remains an issue as the funders have not processed the payment as previously agreed.
RECOMMENDATION:
Having considered the submissions of both parties the Court is satisfied that a local level agreement was reached providing an ex-gratia redundancy payment of 3.35 weeks' pay per year of service in addition to statutory redundancy. The Court is further satisfied that this formula is in line with the type of settlement on redundancy payments reached in analogous employments.
In these circumstances the Court is satisfied that the Union's claim is reasonable and it recommends that it be conceded.
The Court notes the Employer in this case is wholly dependent on external funding. The Court further recommends that the parties jointly approach the funding agency with a view to obtaining the necessary financial support in order to implement this Recommendation.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Brendan Hayes
4th November 2013.______________________
AH.Deputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Jonathan McCabe, Court Secretary.