FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2004 SECTION 20(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : LE CHEILE FAMILY RESOURCE CENTRE LIMITED - AND - (REPRESENTED BY IRISH MUNICIPAL, PUBLIC AND CIVIL TRADE UNION) DIVISION : Chairman: Mr McGee Employer Member: Mr Grier Worker Member: Mr O'Neill |
1. Redundancy terms
BACKGROUND:
2. The Union's case is on behalf of two workers who were employed as Traveller Health Development Workers with the Centre. The two workers had 3.5 years' service and 4 years' service respectively. The HSE was the source of funding for the project they were working on and this funding ceased on the 31st of December, 2005, resulting in both workers being made redundant. The Centre sought funding from the HSE to pay the workers' redundancy but the HSE refused to meet the claim. The Centre paid statutory redundancy from its own resources. The Union is seeking redundancy of 4 weeks' pay per year of service (including 2 weeks' statutory) plus an additional one week's pay.
The Union referred the case to the Labour Court on the 21st of July, 2006, in accordance with Section 20(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969. A Labour Court hearing took place in Cork on the 23rd of May, 2007.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The workers were approximately four years with the Centre and received contracts of indefinite duration in 2004. They had an expectation of continued employment.
2. The Centre has accepted that the workers are entitled to a redundancy payment and that the Union's claim is not unreasonable.
3. The Labour Court has issued numerous recommendations in the past that have supported similar redundancy packages.
CENTRE'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Centre accepts that a redundancy situation exists and has sought additional funding from the HSE. The application was refused and, indeed, the HSE contested that a redundancy situation existed. As a voluntary body the Centre has very limited resources.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court is satisfied that the redundancy package sought by the Union is not unreasonable and is in line with similar settlements in this sector. Both parties agree that the claim has merit. The only impediment is the failure of the funding authority to make the resources available following its termination of the project.
The Court recommends the concession of the Union's claim and strongly urges the funding authority to make the necessary financial resources available.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Raymond McGee
31st May, 2007______________________
CON/MB.Deputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Ciaran O'Neill, Court Secretary.