FULL RECOMMENDATION
SECTION 20(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : THE ALZHEIMER SOCIETY OF IRELAND (REPRESENTED BY IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION) - AND - A WORKER (REPRESENTED BY INMO) DIVISION : Chairman: Ms Jenkinson Employer Member: Ms Connolly Worker Member: Ms Treacy |
1. Enhanced Redundancy.
BACKGROUND:
2. The case before the Court concerns the Union's claim for an enhanced redundancy package on behalf of a member who was made redundant from the Company and received statutory redundancy entitlements only. It is the Union's claim that public sector redundancy terms should apply to its member who was subjected to reductions in pay in line with cuts made throughout the public sector in accordance with the terms of the Public Service Agreements.The Employer rejects the Union's claim arguing that it is not in a financial position to offer an enhanced package above statutory entitlements.
On the 9th February, 2018 the Union referred the issue to the Labour Court, in accordance with Section 20(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 23rd March, 2018.
The Union agreed to be bound by the Court’s Recommendation.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. Public sector norms have previously applied to the Claimant during the course of her employment.
2. It is the Union's claim that the redundancy formula in practice in the public sector should have applied to the Claimant.
EMPLOYER'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Employer does not operate within the public sector and is not governed by the terms of the Public Service Agreements.
2. The Employer is not in a financial position to concede the Union's claim.
RECOMMENDATION:
The matter before the Court was brought under Section 20(1) of the Industrial Relations Act 1969 (the Act) and concerns a claim by the Union on behalf of an employee who was made redundant by the Society in February 2018. The Union seeks application of the Public Service Agreement ex-gratia redundancy payment.
The Union submitted that the case was before the Court under Section 20(1) of the Act as the Society had refused to adhere to its normal grievance procedures. The Society stated that it had objected to attending the conciliation services of the Workplace Relations Commission (WRC) as requested by the Union. This objection was on the basis that the claim involved one claimant and therefore it was of the view that the more appropriate referral was to the Adjudication Service of the WRC. The Court notes the Society’s commitment to observe its grievance/disciplinary procedures and to abide by its policy to attend the appropriate forum.
The Union stated that as the Society has a service level agreement with the HSE, the terms of that agreement oblige it to observe public sector agreements.
The Society is a not for profit organisation Section 39 Agency which receives 61% of its funding from the HSE. The Employer told the Court that it does not have any control over its funding and has no funds to pay the ex-gratia redundancy payment claimed. It stated that it is not part of the public sector and has not been comprehended by Public Sector Agreements since the Public Service Agreement 2010-2014 (the Croke Park Agreement).
Having carefully considered the position of both parties, the Court notes that the Claimant in this case was employed in a service which was seconded by the HSE to the Society and on that basis the Claimant’s salary was fully funded by the HSE. On that basis the Court is of the view that in a redundancy situation she should be entitled to the provisions of the enhanced redundancy payments for public servants under the Public Service Agreement 2010 – 2014. Therefore, the Court recommends that the Society should pay the Claimant in this case an ex-gratia payment of 3 weeks’ pay per year of service, in excess of the statutory redundancy payment already paid, subject to the total statutory redundancy and ex-gratia payment not exceeding either 2 years’ pay or one half of the salary payable to preserved pension age, whichever is less.
The Court further recommends that the parties should jointly cooperate in seeking sufficient funding from the HSE to enable the Society to implement this recommendation.
The Court so recommends.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Caroline Jenkinson
27th March 2018______________________
SCDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Sharon Cahill, Court Secretary.