FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 13(9), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : OFFALY LOCAL DEVELOPMENT COMPANY LIMITED - AND - A WORKER (REPRESENTED BY SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION) DIVISION : Chairman: Ms Jenkinson Employer Member: Mr Murphy Worker Member: Ms Tanham |
1. Appeal against a Rights Commissioner's Decision r-089315-ir-10/JC.
BACKGROUND:
2. Offaly Local Development Company Ltd is a state-funded not-for-profit organisation which delivers a range of programmes combating disadvantage to people, families, communities and businesses within the catchment area. Funding comes from Pobal, the HSE and the Department of Education and Skills. The Claimant commenced employment with County Offaly VEC in 1999 as an Education Co-ordinator. Her employment transferred to OAK Partnership in 2000 and further transferred again Offaly Local Development Co. Ltd. in 2009. She was made redundant after 30 days' notice in December 2009. She was awarded her statutory redundance but her Union is seeking an enhanced package.
The issue involves a claim by a Worker. The matter was referred to a Rights Commissioner for investigation and recommendation. On the 15th November, 2010, the Rights Commissioner issued his Recommendation as follows:-
"On the basis of the evidence presented to the hearing I find that the respondent did not engage with the Union in advance of implementation of the decision to make the claimant redundant. They did not outline to the claimant the criteria against which she was assessed and the decision taken to make her redundant. I find that there was a genuine redundancy situation and that the respondent decided to make the claimant redundant. The claimant was paid statutory redundancy and I recommend that the respondent pay the claimant a severance package of 3 weeks for each year of service in addition to her statutory redundancy".
On the 21st December, 2010 the Employer appealed the Rights Commissioner's Recommendation to the Labour Court in accordance with Section 13(9) of the Industrial Relations Act 1969. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 27th March, 2012.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. There was a lack of consulation with the Worker prior to making the decision to make her redundant. Other avenues were not explored before coming to this decision.
2. The Worker is entitled to an enhanced package and the Court is requested to make a Recommendation as in other recorded cases of a similar nature.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Employer tried to find alternatives to making the Worker redundant and concluded that there were none. The Company has no cash reserves nor any source from which to raise funds in order to pay an enhanced redundancy package.
DECISION:
This is an appeal by the Company of a Rights Commissioner’s Recommendation which found in favour of the Claimant’s claim for an ex-gratia redundancy payment. The Rights Commissioner recommended that she should be paid three weeks’ pay per year of service in addition to the statutory redundancy payment already paid.
The Company appealed the Recommendation on the basis that it does not have the necessary funds to pay an ex-gratia redundancy payment and has no means of securing such funds.
The Union, on behalf of the Claimant, submitted that she should be paid an enhanced redundancy payment as paid in similar employments where redundancy payments of three weeks’ pay per year of service, in addition to the statutory terms, had applied.
The Court is satisfied that the Company entered into appropriate and reasonable communication with the Claimant and her representatives on the impending redundancy situation which arose due to a cessation of funding for her role at the latter end of 2009. Furthermore, the Court is satisfied that the Union's claim is reasonable and is in line with settlements reached in similar employments. Accordingly, the Court upholds the Rights Commissioner’s Recommendation.
The Court notes that the basis upon which the Company resisted the Union's claim is due to the lack of funding for such an enhanced redundancy payment. The Company is a fully-funded agency and the redundancy giving rise to this dispute arose in direct consequence of the withdrawal of funding. While the Court cannot direct any recommendations to the funding authorities who are not party to the dispute before the Court, the Court is of the view that both parties should jointly approach the Departments of Education and Skills and the Environment, Community and Local Government with a view to obtaining the necessary funding so as to allow this Recommendation to be implemented.
The Court so Decides.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Caroline Jenkinson
30th March, 2012______________________
JFDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Decision should be addressed to John Foley, Court Secretary.