FULL RECOMMENDATION
SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : WEST CORK DEVELOPMENT PARTNERSHIP LIMITED - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Haugh Employer Member: Mr Murphy Worker Member: Mr McCarthy |
1. Redundancy terms.
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 11 October 2016, in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on 22 February 2017. The case relates to a claim for enhanced redundancy terms.
RECOMMENDATION:
Background to the Dispute
West Cork Development Partnership Limited (“the Company”) was established to facilitate the delivery of a LEADER Programme funded through the Department of Arts, Heritage, Regional, Rural and Galetacht Affairs. A significant change of policy occurred at EU level in 2014 in relation to the delivery of rural development projects such as LEADER for the period 2015-20 as a consequence of which responsibility for the oversight of these programmes at national level transferred to the Department of Environment, Community and Local Government (DECLG). The Company tendered in late 2015 to secure LEADER funding from DECLG for the period to 2020. It was advised in June 2016 that its application was not successful. It unsuccessfully appealed this decision. As a consequence, seven staff were notified that they would be made redundant with effect from 31 October 2016. However, DECLG advised the Company on 5 October that it was in a position to contribute toward the cost of statutory redundancy payments only for the 7 remaining staff members and that a monetary cap of €40,000.00 should apply to such payments. The DECLG contribution to the statutory redundancy payments was received by the Company on 14 November 2016.
The claim before the Court is for an enhanced redundancy payment of 3 weeks’ per year of service plus statutory, capped at 2 years’ pay. This is in line with redundancy payments made in the past by many other similar rural development companies and as recommended by this Court in a number of its recommendations (e.g. LCR21086). The Company does not have the reserves to fund this from its own resources.
Recommendation
The Court recommends that the 7 employees made redundant by the Company should receive an enhanced redundancy package on the same terms as those employees of other rural development companies made redundant in the past i.e. based on the formula of 3 weeks’ pay per year of service in addition to statutory entitlement subject to an overall ‘cap’ in value of two years’ pay. The Company should use its best endeavours to seek the necessary funding from DECLG to meet the terms of this recommendation.
The Court so recommends.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Alan Haugh
20 June 2017______________________
MNDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Michael Neville, Court Secretary.