Complainant

Respondent

Anonymised Parties

A Community Worker

A Community Agency

Representatives

IMPACT

Clare Bruton B.L.

Act

Complaint/Dispute Reference No.

Date of Receipt

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969

CA-00008774-001

14/12/2016

The respondent operated a community enterprise scheme which was funded by the Department of Social Protection.

In 2016 the respondent decided to wind down the project on which the complainant was employed and having declined the offer of alternative work she was made redundant.

While the complainant was paid the statutory redundancy payment and an additional ex gratia payment she sought a higher level of ex gratia payment which was refused and which is the issue in the case.

The complainant relies on a memorandum of agreement made between what was then FAS and a number of trade unions in May 2005 dealing with redundancy of workers comparable to the complainant.

This provides for an ex gratia payment of 3.35 weeks of service in addition to the statutory payment.

The agreement is stated to apply to ‘all of those supervisors who demonstrated an entitlement to statutory redundancy since 2003’.

The respondent disputes the applicability of the May 2005 Memorandum of Agreement to the current circumstance.

They rely on a statement by the then Minister for Social Protection in Dail Eireann on March 11^th 2014 in the course of which she addressed eligibility to the ‘enhanced’ or ex gratia payments claimed by the complainant   in this case.

The Minister drew a distinction between a situation where the direct operator of a scheme decides to close it down, which is what happened in the current case, and, on the other hand where two or more of the schemes are merged or reorganised on the initiative of the Department, in which case the higher ex gratia claimed in the current case would apply.

However, the position of the complainant in this case is governed by the lower ex gratia payment of one week and also referred to in the Minister’s statement.

This was further confirmed in an email to the respondent from an official of the Department which confirmed that the higher, enhanced rate of payment applies in the context of ‘the huge reductions’ in the schemes and, later ‘specifies that it is where ’the Department causes the redundancy of a supervisor (e.g. scheme amalgamation closures)

This is a relatively clear cut matter.

While the precise provenance of the May 2005 agreement as submitted by the complainant at the hearing is uncertain (it is not on official stationary for example) it is referred to in the letter received by the respondent from the Department.

In any event the Minister’s reply to a Dail parliamentary question removes any doubt and reading then together it is clear that the higher level of payment only arises when the redundancy is not directly triggered by the scheme operator.

I find that the complainant was paid in accordance with the correct provision and is not eligible for the terms outlined in the May 2005 Memorandum of Agreement.

For the reasons set out above I do not uphold the complaint and it is dismissed.

Redundancy-enhanced terms-industrial relations