FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : DEPTARTMENT OF EDUCATION & SKILLS (REPRESENTED BY DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC EXPENDITURE) - AND - IFUT SIPTU INTO ASTI TUI DIVISION : Chairman: Ms Jenkinson Employer Member: Ms Doyle Worker Member: Ms Tanham |
1. Variation to the terms of enhanced redundancy payments to Public Servants.
BACKGROUND:
2. This case is a dispute arising from Labour Court Recommendation No: 20555. It concerns a dispute between the Employer and Unions in relation to provisions of the Agreement on Enhanced Redundancy Payments to Public Servants.
- The parties re-engaged under the auspices of the Labour Relations Commission. As agreement was not reached, the dispute was referred back to the Labour Court on the 27th January 2014, in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990.
A Labour Court hearing took place on the 18th March, 2014.
UNION’S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Union is seeking a similar arrangement that currently relates to special needs assistants (SNAs). SNA's receive 2 weeks’ pay per year of service plus statutory redundancy with no ban on re-employment in the public service.
EMPLOYER'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. In June 2012 a collective agreement provided for 3 weeks' pay per year of service plus Statutory Redundancy. The Department offered to completely remove the two year ban for Public Servants on the basis that the redundancy payment is 1.5 weeks' pay per year of service plus the statutory redundancy. The Department maintained that the elimination of the ban in such circumstances would not undermine the arrangements of the Enhanced Redundancy Agreement where the two year ban applied.
RECOMMENDATION:
The matter referred to the Court follows Labour Court Recommendation No: 20555, in which the Unions sought a variation to the terms of the Agreement on Enhanced Redundancy Payments to Public Servants when it sought the removal of the provision in the Agreement precluding public servants from being re-employed in the public service for a period of two years following redundancy in the Education Sector. The Court’s recommendation stated as follows:-
“The Court recognises a difference in the circumstances of those who volunteer for redundancy and those who are made compulsorily redundant. In the application of the restriction on redeployment in the public service this distinction could be taken into account.
The Court recommends that the parties enter into further discussions with a view to exploring the possibility of providing some modification of the restriction in the case of those who are made redundant compulsorily without the prospect of further or successive engagement.
If agreement is not reached the matter may be referred back to the Court.”
As a result of inconclusive discussions on the matter the case was referred back to the Court. Having considered the position of both sides the Court recommends the following:-
Employees made redundant in the Education Sector who accept the two year ban on re-employment within the public sector should be entitled to benefit from the terms of the Agreement on Enhanced Redundancy Payments as laid down in the Agreement, i.e. three weeks’ pay per year of service plus statutory redundancy payment.
- Employees made redundant in the Education Sector who do not accept the two year ban on redeployment within the public sector should be paid two weeks’ pay per year of service plus statutory redundancy.
The Court so recommends.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Caroline Jenkinson
CR______________________
27th March, 2014.Deputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Ciaran Roche, Court Secretary.