FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : GALWAY RURAL DEVELOPMENT CO LTD (REPRESENTED BY IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION) - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Ms Jenkinson Employer Member: Ms Cryan Worker Member: Mr Shanahan |
1. Enhanced redundancy.
BACKGROUND:
2. This dispute concerns the Worker's claim for an enhanced redundancy payment. 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 17th September, 2013, in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 26th March, 2014.
UNION’S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. An enhanced redundancy package of three weeks' pay per year of service plus statutory is the norm in the Community Sector.
2. The Labour Court has made many recommendations to this effect.
3. The Workers are being treated less favourably than other workers in the Community Sector.
EMPLOYER'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Employer's funding was cut, forcing it to make the Worker redundant.
2. While the Employer has every sympathy for the Worker it does not have the money to fund statutory redundancy payments.
3. The Employer cannot afford to concede the Union's claim.
RECOMMENDATION:
The matter before the Court is a claim by the Union on behalf of an Employee employed by the Company as an Administrator for enhanced redundancy payments when she was made redundant in July 2013. The Company, which is a not for profit organisation, receives funding through the Local Community Development Programme from Pobal, who operate under the auspices of the Department of the Environment, Community & Local Government. Due to a reduction in funding, Management had no alternative but to close the project and the Claimant was made redundant. Management stated to the Court that it had no funds to pay an ex-gratia redundancy payment.
Having considered the oral and written submissions of both parties, the Court recommends that an ex-gratia payment of three weeks' pay per year of service should be paid to the Claimant. The Court notes that due to the financial circumstances of the Company it does not have the funds to pay this amount out of its own resources and therefore the Court recommends that the parties should jointly cooperate in seeking the necessary funds from the funding agencies to discharge the amount recommended.
The Court so recommends.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Caroline Jenkinson
14th April, 2014______________________
JMcCDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Jonathan McCabe, Court Secretary.