FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : NUI GALWAY (REPRESENTED BY RDJ GLYNN SOLICITORS) - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Duffy Employer Member: Ms Cryan Worker Member: Ms Tanham |
1. Breach of Clause 1.6 Public Service Agreement 2010-2014
BACKGROUND:
2. This case concerns a dispute between NUIG and SIPTU in relation to an alleged breach of Clause 1.6 of the Public Service Agreement (2010-2014). The Union contends that Management is in breach of the Agreement on the basis that it made the worker compulsorily redundant rather than provide suitable alternative employment within the organisation. Management's position is that funding had ceased for the workers continued employment and no suitable alternative employment existed. It contends it acted in compliance with its procedures on the issue.
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 8th June 2015 in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on 28th October 2015.
UNION'S ARGUMENT:
3 1 The worker was made compulsorily redundant at variance with the provisions of Section 1.6 of the Public Service Agreement. In line with the agreement suitable alternative employment should have been offered. The Union is seeking that the worker be reinstated retrospectively to August 2014.
2 The parties had discussed an enhanced redundancy option previously which was agreed but not implemented by Management. Given that Management failed to implement the agreement the worker is now seeking that she be reinstated in line with her original claim.
MANAGEMENT'S ARGUMENT:
4 1 Management acted in compliance with its own procedures at all times. If there had been a suitably alternative position available, the worker would have been reassigned and would not have been made redundant. Unfortunately there were no options available to management at the time.
RECOMMENDATION:
It is noted that agreement was reached at conciliation on the payment of an enhanced redundancy package, in line with that agreed between the Public Service Unions and DPER, in settlement of this dispute. It seems that in arriving at that settlement there was implicit acceptance that the Claimant’s post was one to which the exception to security of tenure provided by Clause 1.6 of the Public Service Agreement could apply.
There was then an unexplained and, in the Court’s opinion, unacceptable delay on the part of the University in giving effect to the agreement. In consequence of that delay by the University the Claimant purported to withdraw her consent to the terms of the agreement and reverted to her original position.
Having regard to all the circumstances of this case the Court recommends that the agreement reached at conciliation on the payment of enhanced redundancy be accepted by all parties.
The University must accept responsibility for exasperating this dispute by its failure to implement that agreement within a reasonable time after its conclusion. Consequently the Court recommends that the University pay the Claimant an additional redundancy lump sum in the amount of €10,000 together with the amount referred to above.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Duffy
13th November 2015______________________
AHChairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Andrew Heavey, Court Secretary.