FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : AGES AND STAGES CRECHE DUNDALK - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Hayes Employer Member: Mr Murphy Worker Member: Mr McCarthy |
1. Redundancy terms.
BACKGROUND:
2. The issue before the Court concerns a claim by the Union on behalf of its members for an enhanced redundancy package. In August 2014 the Company was forced to close down as a result of financial difficulties. The Workers were made redundant and received statutory entitlements only. The Union on behalf of its members is seeking enhanced redundancy terms comprising an ex gratia payment of three weeks' pay per year of service. The Employer contends that it is not in a financial position to concede the Union's claim. 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 12th May, 2015, in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 1st July, 2015.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Union is seeking an enhanced redundancy package in line with industry norms.
EMPLOYER'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Employer maintains that there are no available funds to concede the Union's claim.
RECOMMENDATION:
Having carefully considered the submissions of both parties to this dispute the Court recommends concession of the Union’s claim for an ex gratia severance payment of three weeks’ pay per year of service in addition to statutory redundancy entitlements.
In doing so the Court notes that the Respondent in this case does not have the money to meet the cost of the Recommendation. The Court further notes that a number of public agencies were involved in the funding of the employing body and that those bodies would be in a position to meet the cost of this claim.
In the circumstances the Court further recommends that the parties to this dispute jointly and severally approach those funding bodies with a view to securing the funding necessary to meet the cost of this Recommendation.
The Court so recommends.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Brendan Hayes
8th July 2015______________________
SCDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Sharon Cahill, Court Secretary.