FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 20(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : TIPPERARY TECHNOLOGICAL PARK (REPRESENTED BY LGMSB) - AND - A WORKER (REPRESENTED BY SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION) DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Duffy Employer Member: Mr Grier Worker Member: Mr O'Neill |
1. Enhanced redundancy package.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Company is part of the West Tipperary Enterprise Group which was set up to create employment for those who had lost jobs in the Tipperary area. It received financial assistance from a number of sources. The worker was employed by the Company from 1st January, 2002, until 22nd July, 2005, when his position was declared redundant. The Company had offered the worker alternative employment but he refused it and was paid statutory redundancy. The Union is seeking an enhanced redundancy package in line with those applicable to FAS-funded projects. The Company's case is that it does not have funds to pay more than statutory redundancy.
The Union referred the case to the Labour Court on the 26th October, 2007, in accordance with Section 20(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 22nd April, in Nenagh. The worker agreed to be bound by the Court's recommendation.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1.The Company refused to engage in any form of negotiation with the worker, including attending a Rights Commissioner hearing.
2. There have beennumerous redundancy-payment claims for workers involved in FAS-funded schemes. This has led to an established norm of an additional 3.35 weeks' pay per year of service.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Company cannot afford an enhanced redundancy package due to its precarious financial situation. It continues to be dependent on the goodwill of many of its benefactors.
2. The worker was offered a new contract of employment on a salary scheme equivalent to the scale offered and fully funded by FAS under the Social Employment Scheme but he refused the offer.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court is satisfied that the Union's claim is not in itself unreasonable. However, it is accepted that the financial circumstances of the Company precludes it from meeting the claim.
The Court recommends that in the event of the Company being provided with the necessary funds the Union's claim should be conceded.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Duffy
1st May, 2008______________________
CON.Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Ciaran O'Neill, Court Secretary.