FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : TRINITY COLLEGE DUBLIN (REPRESENTED BY IBEC) - AND - IFUT DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Duffy Employer Member: Ms Doyle Worker Member: Mr McCarthy |
1. Compliance with Clause 1.6 of the Public Service Agreement.
BACKGROUND:
2. The case before the Court concerns a dispute between the Employer and the Union in relation to the Union's claim that the Employer has acted in breach of the terms of Clause 1.6 of the Public Service Agreement 2010-2014 (PSA). It is the Union's claim that the Employer has breached the terms of the Agreement in the manner by which the Claimant faced compulsory redundancy. The Union contends that the Claimant was treated in an inequitable manner as a result of the Employer's failure to treat him as a permanent member of staff when assessing his redundancy situation.The 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 25th June, 2015, in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 18th August, 2015.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Union contends that the Claimant held a contract of indefinite duration (CID) and was entitled to continued employment in the College.
2. The Union asserts that under Clause 1.6 of the PSA the Employer is obliged to explore flexibility and redeployment before redundancy. In this instance the Claimant faced compulsory redundancy without the Employer making any real effort to secure his employment.
3. The Union on behalf of its member is seeking full restoration of the Claimant's position from July, 2014.
EMPLOYER'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Employer maintains that the Claimant held a series of specific purpose fixed-term contracts and was made redundant when his position became redundant.
2. The Employer contends that it has fully complied with the terms of the PSA and the Claimant was made redundant when no suitable alternative employment was available.
3. The Claimant accepted an enhanced redundancy package comprising of statutory redundancy and ex-gratia payment.
RECOMMENDATION:
This dispute came before the Court in reliance on Clause 1.6 of the Public Service Agreement (PSA) 2010-2014.
That clause provides:-
- "The Government gives a commitment that compulsory redundancy will not apply within the public service, save where existing exit provisions apply"
- "There are established practices for making public servants in appropriate circumstances, on the expiry of employment contracts or where redundancy terms have been agreed or generally applied. It is not intended that these practices would be superseded by the agreement
The Body has concluded that the question of whether there is an established practice is a matter of fact, not of interpretation.
The Court has carefully considered all of the relevant circumstances of the Claimant's employment, including the range of duties that he performed over his nine years of continuous service with the College. The Court is not satisfied that those circumstances brings him within the generally applicable practice relied upon by the college.
In these circumstances the Court has concluded that the Union's claim is well founded and that the dismissal of the Claimant on grounds of redundancy contravened Clause 1.6 of the PSA. The Court recommends that the Claimant be reinstated to his former position or to an equivalent position with effect from the date of his dismissal.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Duffy
28th August 2015______________________
SCChairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Sharon Cahill, Court Secretary.