FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : NUI GALWAY (REPRESENTED BY IBEC) - AND - IFUT DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Duffy Employer Member: Ms Doyle Worker Member: Ms Tanham |
1. Breach of Agreement For Enhanced Redundancy Payments To Public Servants
BACKGROUND:
2. This dispute concerns the entitlement of a worker to enhanced redundancy terms. The Union is seeking an ex gratia redundancy payment of three weeks pay per year of service in line with the Enhanced Redundancy terms in the Education Sector covered by the provisions of the Public Service Agreement 2010-2014. Management contends that the standard practice within NUIG is to pay statutory redundancy entitlements only. This dispute could not be resolved at local level and was the subject of a Conciliation Conference under the auspices of the Labour Relations Commission. As agreement was not reached, the dispute was referred to the Labour Court on the4th December, 2013, in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990.
A Labour Court hearing took place on the23rd April, 2014.
UNION’S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1.Enhanced severance has been recommended by the Labour Court in three separate cases at NUI Galway, in which the college had argued that workers should be paid statutory redundancy only.
2. Since the concession on 1 June, 2012 of 3 weeks pay per year of service, this amount has been paid out several time by other Universities without dispute and its offer has been sanctioned by the Department of Education in the Church of Ireland College of Education.
EMPLOYER'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. If the Court is to consider applying the enhanced redundancy package, it should be aware of the financial consequences for the University. The University will end up having to fund the enhanced redundancy package out of their existing budgets and these are being reduced on a year on year basis since 2009.
2. NUIG applied its own procedures in relation to the payment of redundancy. It has consistently applied statutory entitlements only.
RECOMMENDATION:
The dispute came before the Court pursuant to Clause 1.24 of the Public Service Agreement. Consequently, the Recommendation of the Court is final.
The issue in dispute in this case concerns the entitlement of a worker made compulsorily redundant to enhanced redundancy payment in accordance with the Enhanced Redundancy Agreement entered into between the Department of Education and Skills and the Public Services Committee of ICTU. Precisely the same issue was dealt with by the Court, in disputes between the same parties, in Recommendations LCR20704 and LCR20743. In both cases the Court held that the Enhanced Redundancy Agreement was applicable in circumstances indistinguishable from those of the present case.
The terms of the Enhanced Redundancy Agreement, which is binding on the University, entitles the Claimant to a redundancy payment equal to three weeks’ pay per year of service in addition to her statutory entitlements. The Union’s claim is for the application of those terms. It is clear beyond argument that the claim is well founded and should be conceded.
In light of the clear and unambiguous terms of the Enhanced Redundancy Agreement, and the definitive terms in which the previous Recommendations on this point were expressed, the Court has considerable difficulty in understanding the basis upon which the University has chosen to resist the Union’s claim in this instance.
In these circumstances the Court recommends that the Union’s claim be conceded in full.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Duffy
CC______________________
12/05/2014Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Ceola Cronin, Court Secretary.