FULL RECOMMENDATION
SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : ENABLE IRELAND DISABILITY SERVICES LTD REPRESENTED BY (IRISH BUSINESS EMPLOYERS CONFEDERATION) - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Foley Employer Member: Mr Marie Worker Member: Ms Tanham |
1. Payment of Enhanced Redundancy.
BACKGROUND:
2. This dispute could not be resolved at local level and was the subject of a conciliation conference under the auspices of the Workplace Relations Commission. As agreement was not reached, the dispute was referred to the Labour Court on 12 April 2017 in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on 25 May 2017.
UNION’S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The worker is entitled to be paid the enhanced redundancy terms in line with the national agreement on this issue.
2. There is no basis for not applying the national agreement in this case, and to deny the worker an enhanced redundancy payment would be totally unfair and discriminatory.
EMPLOYER'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Claimant’s role was made redundant as a result of a decline in programme participant numbers.
2. The respondent Company is not in a position to pay the enhanced redundancy payment sought.
RECOMMENDATION:
The matter before the Court concerns a claim for an enhanced redundancy payment for the Claimant who was employed as a Community Employment Scheme Assistant Supervisor. The Claimant’s role was made redundant in August 2016 and she received statutory redundancy after 19 years of service in the amount of €21,127. The redundancy of the role, according to the employer, arose from a decision of the Department of Social Protection relating to numbers participating on the CE Scheme.
The Union sought the application of redundancy terms as set out in an agreement made nationally in 2002 and updated in 2005 between Trade Unions, FAS and the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment which was the relevant Government department at the time. The Department of Social Protection is now the relevant department. Those agreed terms are 3.35 weeks' pay per year of service plus statutory redundancy entitlement.
The Employer has set out to the Court that it does not have the financial capacity to pay the terms sought by the Trade Union. The Employer has set out to the Court its’ understanding of the basis for a refusal by the Department of Social Protection to provide the funds to allow payment to the Claimant of the terms contained in the national agreement. The Court has difficulty in relating the reported position of the Department to the terms of the national agreement and in the absence of the Department the Court was not, at its hearing, in a position to secure any clarification of this matter.
The Court has examined the text of the national agreement which is in place and operational between the Department of Social Protection and Trade Unions. The Court is satisfied from the information available to it that the agreement as written applies to the redundancy which arose from the Department’s decision to cease funding for the role of Assistant Supervisor on this scheme.
In all the circumstances the Court recommends that the Claimant be paid the enhanced redundancy terms set out in the national agreement.
In order to implement the Recommendation, the parties should jointly approach the Department of Social Protection with a view to securing the necessary funding to pay the recommended ex-gratia payment.
The Court so recommends.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Foley
6 June 2017.______________________
MNChairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Michael Neville, Court Secretary.