FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : NUI GALWAY (REPRESENTED BY IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION) - AND - IRISH FEDERATION OF UNIVERSITY TEACHERS DIVISION : Chairman: Ms Jenkinson Employer Member: Mr Murphy Worker Member: Mr Shanahan |
1. Claim for an ex-gratia redundancy payment to a Worker.
BACKGROUND:
2. This dispute concerns a claim by the Union on behalf of the Claimant for ex-gratia redundancy terms on the termination of her employment. The Employer said that the payment of statutory redundancy amounted to an “existing exit provision” within the meaning of Paragraph 1.6 of the Public Service Agreement 2010 - 2014. 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 31st January 2014, in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990.
A Labour Court hearing took place on the 7th May 2014.
UNION’S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Union is seeking that NUIG pay the Claimant the same ex-gratia redundancy payment as has already been paid to comparators in the Higher Education Sector i.e. three weeks’ pay per year of service in addition to statutory payments.
2. In August 2013 the Claimant was made redundant. She accepted her statutory redundancy payment without prejudice to this claim for an ex-gratia payment.
EMPLOYER'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. In July 2013 the Claimant was notified of the fact that funding would expire on the conclusion of her current assignment and of the resulting redundancy.
2. Each year a number of research posts are made redundant as a matter of practice with payments limited to statutory redundancy and those redundancies are covered by the existing exit provisions within the meaning of paragraph 1.6 of the Public Service Agreement 2010 – 2014.
RECOMMENDATION:
The matter before the Court concerns a claim by the Union on behalf of the Claimant for ex-gratia redundancy terms on the termination of her employment on 26thAugust 2013. The Claimant had been employed on a series of fixed-term contracts from 2003 until September 2007 when she became entitled to and received a contract of indefinite duration.
The Court notes that the redundancy of the Claimantper seis not in dispute. She was paid a statutory redundancy payment on 26thAugust 2013.
The Union submitted that the Claimant was entitled to an ex gratia redundancy payment reflective of the Education Sector in general or as agreed under the terms of the Public Service Agreement 2010-2014 (“the PSA”).
Management argued that the 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 redundancy in this case is not in dispute then the enhanced redundancy payment 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 enhanced redundancy payments as set out in that Agreement.
Accordingly, the Court recommends that in accordance with the terms of the PSA the Claimant should be paid three weeks’ pay per year of service. The Court notes that a statutory redundancy payment has already been paid to the Claimant.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Caroline Jenkinson
CR______________________
27th May, 2014Deputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Jonathan McCabe, Court Secretary.