FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : NUI GALWAY (REPRESENTED BY RDJ GLYNN SOLICITORS) - AND - IFUT DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Hayes Employer Member: Ms Cryan Worker Member: Mr Shanahan |
1. Breach of agreement for enhanced redundancy payments to public servants.
BACKGROUND:
2. This dispute concerns the Union's claim that the Employer's treatment of the Worker is in breach of the collective agreement for enhanced redundancy payments for public servants. 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 28th June, 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 Worker was not offered redeployment or any other alternative to redundancy.
2 The Worker was not paid the same enhanced redundancy paid to valid comparators in the higher education sector.
3 The Employer is alone in the higher education sector in refusing to pay nothing above statutory redundancy entitlements.
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 Concession of this claim would place an enormous and unsustainable financial burden on the Employer.
3. Concession of this claim would undermine the manner in which research is carried out in the higher education sector.
RECOMMENDATION:
Having carefully considered the submissions of both parties to this dispute the Court finds as follows:-
- 1. The terms of the terms of the document bearing the title “Collective Agreement: Enhanced Redundancy Payments to Public Servants” applies in this case.
2. There is no dispute between the parties regarding the University’s decision to make the claimant redundant pursuant to an “existing exit mechanism” that applies in this case.
3. The Court finds that the “saver” on which the University relies relates to its capacity to make the Claimant redundant and not to the enhanced redundancy payments set out in that agreement.
4. Accordingly the Court finds that the Union’s claim is well founded, the Claimant was made redundant after 1 June 2012 and is entitled to an ex gratia payment of 3 weeks' pay per year of service in addition to her statutory entitlement under the Redundancy Payment Act.
5. The Court recommends accordingly.
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.