LCR21752

• Despite the complexities of this case, a genuine transfer of undertaking under SI 131.2003 took place. In the circumstances, the Claimant could have accepted a transfer retaining all his existing terms and conditions and continue his work with ABC. The Claimant declined the transfer. The Respondent did not have alternative positions to offer and therefore there was no other option but to declare a redundancy. I therefore do not find the claim well founded and it fails.

The Worker commenced work with the Employer in 1994. In 2006 he received a contract of indefinite duration which stated that he was appointed to the position of Research Assistant (part-time) in the School of Education located at Trinity College Dublin. It went on to say that this employment is supported by funding which accrues to the School of Education.

All of the Workers duties were carried out for the Anti-Bullying Centre which was associated with the School of Education until it ceased to operate on the 31^stDecember 2013. The Worker was made redundant on the 6^thMarch 2015.

It is the Workers contention that the work he carried out was both administrative and research and that for a period following the closure of the Anti- Bullying Centre he worked directly for the School of Education. It is his position that making him redundant was a breach of the Haddington Road agreement. His representative in their submission to the Court referenced a number of Labour Court decisions involving the Employer where the Court had found that the worker in similar circumstances to this case could rely on clause 1.6 of the Public Service Agreement in respect of compulsory redundancy. The Worker is seeking that the Court set aside the redundancy and that he be reinstated or in the alternative that he is entitled to compensation.

The Employers position is that as the Worker’s post was an externally funded post when the Anti- Bullying Centre closed his position became redundant. They drew the Courts attention to Clause 1.6 of the Public Service Agreement which was reaffirmed in the Haddington Road and Lansdowne Road Agreements which stated that “the Government gives a commitment that compulsory redundancy will not apply within the Public Service, save where existing exit provisions apply”. It was their contention that the Labour Court had previously found that positions which are exclusively engaged in externally funded research are not protected from compulsory redundancy. It was the Employer’s position that this was the position with this post as per his contract. The Employer confirmed to the Court that the Worker had been paid statutory redundancy only. There had been some discussion with his representative at the time in relation to an ex-gratia payment but this had never been concluded.

The Court has carefully considered the submissions of both parties and taken full account of the Claimant’s employment history and his contracts of employment. The Court notes that his work wholly and exclusively related to the Anti-Bullying Centre until the Centre closed. The Worker was then involved in some post closure work in relation to the Centre.

The Court finds that the Worker’s employment was terminated in accordance with the College’s existing provisions in line with Clause 1.6 set out above. The Court notes that the Employer was prepared at the time of his redundancy in 2015 to discuss an ex-gratia payment. The Court recommends that the Worker be paid €10,000 in full and final settlement of this claim. The Recommendation of the Adjudication Officers is set aside

The Court so recommends.

Signed on behalf of the Labour Court



Louise O'Donnell
LS______________________
09 July 2018Deputy Chairman



NOTE

Enquiries concerning this Decision should be addressed to Louise Shally, Court Secretary.