FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : SOUTH DOC (REPRESENTED BY IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION) - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Duffy Employer Member: Ms Doyle Worker Member: Ms Tanham |
1. Redundancy Terms
BACKGROUND:
2. This dispute concerns a claim by the Union for compensation to be paid to its members who were made compulsorily redundant. The Company said the enhanced terms paid in 2008 were confined to those individuals who accepted voluntary redundancy at that time. 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 18th November 2013, in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990.
A Labour Court hearing took place on the 15th May 2014.
UNION’S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. In 2008 it was agreed with the Employer that redundancy compensation would be calculated at a rate of 4.5 weeks’ pay per year of service plus one extra week.
2. Meetings were held with management in April and June 2013 where the financial situation was outlined to the Union. The members were anxious to maintain their employment and it was agreed that members being made redundant would be offered employment in vacancies available in the organisation.
3. Management have refused to honour the agreement reached in 2008.
EMPLOYER'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. Since the 2008 voluntary redundancy scheme there have been 18 redundancies all of which have been paid statutory redundancy only.
2. The enhanced terms paid in 2008 were confined to those individuals who accepted voluntary redundancy at that time further to the implementation of the Halley Report recommendations.
3. The Company would have received 60% of the statutory element of the redundancies made in 2008
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court notes that the employer in this case had sought funding from the HSE in order to pay enhanced redundancy terms but that funding was refused. In these circumstances the employer claims that it is unable to fund anything above statutory terms.
The Court was told that all the terms and conditions of employment of those associated with this claim are directly aligned to those of comparable staff of the HSE. It would seem to the Court that conditions as to redundancy payments should likewise be influenced by the terms applicable to staff of the HSE.
In these circumstances the Court believes that the Union’s claim is reasonable and should be conceded.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Duffy
CR______________________
4th June, 2014.Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Jonathan McCabe, Court Secretary.