FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : NATIONAL UNIVERSITY OF IRELAND GALWAY (REPRESENTED BY RDJ GLYNN SOLICITORS) - AND - IRISH FEDERATION OF UNIVERSITY TEACHERS DIVISION : Chairman: Ms Jenkinson Employer Member: Mr Murphy Worker Member: Mr Shanahan |
1. Exgratia redundancy terms and re-employment in the Public Service.
BACKGROUND:
2. This case concerns a dispute between NUIG and IFUT in relation to a claim for ex gratia redundancy terms. The Union is also seeking that the rules preventing re-employment in the Public Service for two years following redundancy be set aside. The Union contends that the normal practice within the Public and Education Sectors is the payment of exgratia redundancy entitlements. Management's position is that the University has continuously paid statutory redundancy entitlements only and that this is in consistent with the "existing exit provisions" provided for under the Public Service Agreement (PSA) 2010-2014.
The dispute was not 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 matter was referred to the Labour Court on 30th May 2013 in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on 4th February 2014.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3 1Ex gratia redundancy payments:The worker is entitled to enhanced redundancy terms in compliance with the terms of the PSA and in line with what occurs in general in the Education Sector. It is not acceptable that the University considers it appropriate to apply statutory redundancy entitlements only to Public Servants who are made compulsorily redundant.
2Re-employment in the Public Service:Public Servants who are made redundant must wait two years to be re-employed in the Public Service. It is unreasonable to those made compulsorily redundant that these restrictions should still apply. The Union considers it fair and appropriate that this restriction be removed in the instant case.
MANAGEMENT'S ARGUMENTS:
4 1Ex gratia redundancy payments:NUIG applies statutory redundancy payments only. It has done so for many years and is compliant with the terms of the PSA as it has in place "existing exit provisions" as provided for in the Agreement.
RECOMMENDATION:
The matter before the Court concerns claims by the Union on behalf of the Claimant for (i) ex-gratia redundancy terms on the termination of his employment on 18thMarch 2011 and (ii) the setting aside of the conditions imposed within the Public Sector which prohibits re-employment of public servants made redundant for a period of two years.
- (i)Claim for ex-gratia redundancy terms
The Court notes that the redundancy of the Claimantper seis not in dispute. He was made redundant on 18thMarch 2011 and paid a statutory redundancy payment.
The Union submitted that the Claimant was entitled to an exgratia redundancy payment reflective of the Education Sector in general or as agreed under the terms of the Public Sector Agreement 2010-2014 (“the PSA”).
Management argued that the application of redundancies for temporary staff upon the valid conclusion of their contracts and payment of statutory redundancy amounted to an “existing exit provision” within the meaning of Paragraph 1.6 of the PSA.
Paragraph 1.6 of the Agreement provides that compulsory redundancy will not apply within the Public Service except where existing exit provisions apply. The University is covered by the terms of the PSA.
Correspondence dated 17thFebruary 2012 from the PSA’s Implementation Body to the Education Sector Implementation Group specifically dealt with Paragraph 1.6 of the PSA and the issue of “existing exit provisions”. The letter stated that“there are established practices for making public servants redundant in appropriate circumstances, on the expiry of employment contracts or where redundancy terms have been agreed or generally applied.”This same provision was included in the Enhanced Redundancy Agreement agreed between the Department of Education and Skills and the Public Services Committee of ICTU on 10thJuly 2012 which provided enhanced redundancy terms over and above statutory of no more than three weeks’ pay per year of service.
Management submitted to the Court that its existing exit provisions had always involved a statutory redundancy payment and this was a well-established practice which generally applied and that is what happened in this case. Therefore it rejected the Union’s claim.
Having considered the submissions made by both parties the Court takes the view that in circumstances where the redundancies in this case are not in dispute then the enhanced redundancy payments terms set out in the Agreement must apply. The Court is of the view that the references to “existing exit provisions” or where redundancy terms have been agreed or generally applied refer to the right to make people redundant and not to the question of redundancy payments.
Accordingly, the Court recommends that in accordance with the terms of the PSA the Claimants should be paid three weeks’ pay per year of service. The Court notes that statutory redundancy payments have already been paid to the Claimants.
- (ii)Setting aside of the conditions re-employment of public servants made redundant for a period of two years.
The Court notes that this issue was the subject of a Labour Court hearing between the Department of Education and Skills and SIPTU, IFUT, INTO, TUI and ASTI in June 2013 when the Court recommended“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.”Labour Court Recommendation No 20555 refers.
Therefore the Court recommends that this issue should be considered in the light of developments at national level.
The Court so recommends.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Caroline Jenkinson
24th February 2014______________________
AHDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Andrew Heavey, Court Secretary.