ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION/RECOMMENDATION

Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00006514

Parties:

Dispute

Date of Adjudication Hearing: 27/04/2017

Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Rosaleen Glackin

Procedure:

In accordance with Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Acts 1969 and following the referral of the dispute to me by the Director General, I inquired into the dispute and gave the parties an opportunity to be heard by me and to present to me any evidence relevant to the dispute.

Background

The Complainant was made redundant from her position as Community Employment Supervisor on 14^th October 2016. She was paid her statutory redundancy entitlements. The Complainant referred a dispute to the WRC on 14^th December 2016 in relation to an enhanced redundancy package.

Summary of Complainant’s Position.

The Complainant has been employed as Assistant CE Supervisor with a named Centre for the Unemployed from 6^th January 1998 until 14^th October 2016. The Centre is solely funded by the Department of Social Protection.

The Complainant’s Union Representative wrote to to the Chairperson of the Unemployed Centre in September 2016 advising them of a memorandum of understanding between FAS (now the Department of Social Protection) and the Trade Unions in relation to the payment of an enhanced redundancy package to Community Employment Supervisors on foot of the closure of a Community Scheme. The Centre responded on 15^th September 2016 to inform the Complainant that this letter had been forwarded to the Department of Social Protection as the Centre do not have separate funds from which to pay enhanced redundancy payments.

The Union is seeking a recommendation in favour of the Complainant

Summary of Respondent’s Position.

The Centre for the Unemployed is solely funded by the Department of Social Protection. The Department sets out the terms and conditions of employment for Supervisors. The Community Employment Scheme run by the Centre was closed by the Department. However the Centre does not have funds to pay any enhanced redundancy package.

Findings.

On the basis of the evidence from both Parties at the Hearing it is clear that the Centre where the Complainant was employed as a CE Supervisor were running the Scheme on behalf of the Department of Social Protection. It is the Department that sets down the Terms and Conditions of all employees working in CE Schemes. It was the Department who took the decision to close the Centre where the Complainant worked.

I note that the Memorandum referred to by the Complainant and her Trade Union Representative dates from 23^rd May 2005, some 12 years ago.

I also note the Decision of the High Court in Martin and The Minister for Social Protection delivered on 31^st May 2017 Record No. 2016/225. This Decision found that the Employee’s contract of employment was with the Partnership and not with the Department of Social Protection.

Decision:

Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Acts, 1969 requires that I make a recommendation in relation to the dispute

In accordance with Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969 I find that I do not have jurisdiction to recommend to the Department of Social Protection to pay an enhanced redundancy package to the Complainant in circumstances where the Centre, where she was employed, do not have any funds as they were funded solely by the Department of Social Protection. The Complainant’s employment was governed by the Contract of Employment with the Unemployed Centre and not with the Department of Social Protection.

Dated:   07^th July 2017

Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Rosaleen Glackin

Key Words: