FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : DIVISION : Chairman: Ms Jenkinson Employer Member: Mr Murphy Worker Member: Mr Shanahan |
1. Incremental credit and redundancy terms,
BACKGROUND:
2. This case concerns a dispute between the National University of Ireland Galway (NUIG) and SIPTU in relation to claims for incremental credit and enhanced redundancy terms. The Union is seeking the retrospective application of increments that it claims fell due for payment during the course of the workers' employment and that these increased pay rates should have been reflected in the redundancy payments received. The Union is also seeking an ex gratia redundancy payment of three weeks pay per year of service in line with the Enhanced Redundancy terms in the Education Sector covered by the provisions of the Public Service Agreement 2010-2014 (PSA).
Management's position is that the workers' revised contracts of employment provided that increments were not payable. It contends that the salary payable was reflective of the funding received for the posts in question and was increased in line with the receipt of additional funding. In relation to the enhanced redundancy payments, management contends that the standard practice within NUIG is to pay statutory redundancy entitlements only.
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 the 16th May 2013 in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 4th February 2014.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3 1Incremental Credit:The workers contracts of employment provided that the workers were aligned to Grade 2 and on that basis an expectation existed that they would receive annual increments in line with the Grade 2 salary structure.
2Enhanced Redundancy terms: The PSA specifically provides for enhanced redundancy payments to public servants in circumstances where redundancies are necessary. Management's contention that paying statutory redundancy entitlements only constitutes an "existing exit provision" is totally refuted by the Union.
MANAGEMENT'S ARGUMENTS:
4 1Incremental Credit:The workers' original contracts of employment incorrectly stated that they were aligned to Grade 2. This error was clarified and the workers were issued with revised contracts. It was well known to them that their remuneration was based on funding received by the College and were not aligned to Grade 2 for pay purposes.
2Enhanced Redundancy terms:NUIG applied its own procedures with respect to the payment of redundancy. It has consistently applied statutory entitlements only which is compliant with the PSAin terms of an existing exit provision.
RECOMMENDATION:
The matter before the Court concerns claims by the Union on behalf of two Claimants for (i) incremental credits and (ii) ex-gratia redundancy terms. The Claimants were employed as Archive Assistants to work on a Folklore Digitisation Project on fixed term contracts of employment from July 2006. They were made redundant on 30thSeptember 2011.
- (i)Claim for Incremental Credit
The Union submitted that the fixed-term contract of employment furnished to the Claimants on 1stOctober 2008 stated that they were employed as Assistant Administrators, Grade 2 and placed them on point 10 of a 12-point salary scale. Accordingly the Union submitted that they should progressed to point 12 by 1stOctober 2010.
Management stated that the reference to point 10 in the contract was an error as there were no incremental credits applicable to the role. Management confirmed this position to both Claimants by letter dated 4thNovember 2009 and new contracts were furnished to them. Management stated that the alignment to Grade 2 was for superannuation purposes however, their salary was determined by the funding provided for the project and not by reference to a particular Grade.
The Court notes that when the Claimants were furnished with a new contract in October 2008 their salary had varied substantially from the previous two years and accordingly accepts the submission of Management that it was reflective of the funding provided for the project and not aligned to any Grade within the University. Taking the Claimants’ service into account and the salary point which they were aligned to on the Grade 2 salary scale, the Court is of the view that such a salary was not unreasonable when account is taken of normal incremental progression. Therefore, the Court is of the view that the position as presented by Management is not unreasonable in the circumstances and accordingly rejects the Union’s claim.
- (ii)Claim for ex-gratia redundancy terms
The Court notes that the redundancy of both Claimantsper seis not in dispute. The Claimants were made redundant on 30thSeptember 2011 and were paid a statutory redundancy payment.
The Union submitted that the Claimants were entitled to an ex-gratia 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 3 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 these cases. 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.
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.