FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : NUIG (REPRESENTED BY IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION) - AND - IFUT DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Hayes Employer Member: Ms Cryan Worker Member: Mr Shanahan |
1. Alleged breach of Croke Park Agreement (Clauses 1.5 & 1.6).
BACKGROUND:
2. This dispute arose from the Employer's decision to make the Worker redundant following the termination of a research grant. 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 3rd July, 2013, in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 18th February, 2014.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3 1 The Employer did not make the Worker redundant.
2 Clause 1.15 of the Public Service Agreement forbids reductions in pay for serving public servants such as the Worker.
3 The Worker's substantial and continuing financial losses should be restored to him.
EMPLOYER'S ARGUMENTS:
4 1 The Worker was treated in the same manner as all other staff members in the same position each year.
2 The Employer has acted in a manner consistent with previous relevant Labour Court recommendation.
3. Clauses 1.15 and 1.6 are not applicable in this case.
RECOMMENDATION:
Having considered the submissions of both parties to this dispute the Court makes the following findings
- 1. The employment protection measures set out in Section 1.6 of the Public Service Agreement 2010 – 2014 as amended by the Haddington Road Agreement, apply to all public servants.
- 2. The employment protection measures are not absolute. In order to avail of them a public servant must co-operate with the redeployment and relocation measures set out in the agreement. Otherwise they may be made redundant where the work they perform is no longer required.
- 3. A public servant may be made redundant where existing exit provisions apply.
- 4. The University seeks to rely on this provision in this case.
- 5. In doing so it asserts that all staff employed as researchers in the University come within this provision.
- 6. The Court takes the view that any party seeking to derogate from the general employment protection provisions of Section 1.5 of the Agreement must prove that there are existing exit provisions in place in the employment and that they apply in all respects to the worker concerned.
- 7. It cannot rely on a general statement that an entire category of employees do not enjoy the Agreements job protection guarantees unless expressly identified in the Public Service Agreement 2010 – 2014 as amended.
- 8. In this case the University has not presented sufficient evidence to the Court to meet that requirement. While the contract given to the Claimant on August 30th 2006 refers to current funding extending to 31st July 2009 there is no reference to his employment being contingent on the availability of funding. Furthermore the contract dated August 30th was the last one issued to the Claimant. The respondent, nevertheless, continued him in employment after 31 July 2009.
- 9. Accordingly the Court finds that the Claimant comes within the employment protection measures set out in the Agreement.
- 10. It follows from this that so long as the Claimant cooperates with the redeployment and relocation terms of the Agreement he is entitled to job security and to the protection of his terms and conditions of employment save as amended by the terms of the PSA and HRA Agreements.
- 11. Accordingly the Court recommends that the University reinstate with, full retrospection to 31 March 2013, the Claimant’s salary and the terms and conditions of employment under which he was employed prior to his dismissal.
The Court so recommends.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Brendan Hayes
11th April, 2014______________________
JMcCDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Jonathan McCabe, Court Secretary.