Worker

Employer

Anonymised Parties

A Community Employment Supervisor

A Community Employment Scheme

Act

Dispute Reference No.

Date of Receipt

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act 1969

IR - SC - 00003272

09/10/2024

The Worker was employed as a Community Employment (CE) Supervisor with the Employer from the 1st November 1993 until her redundancy on the 20th September 2024. The Worker is seeking enhanced redundancy terms in line with agreements previously concluded between the funders of CE Schemes and the Trade Unions representing CE Scheme Supervisors.

The Trade Union submits that the Worker is entitled to enhanced redundancy terms of 3.35 weeks’ pay per year of service in addition to statutory redundancy entitlements. The Union stated that agreements concluded in 2002 between FÁS, the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment and the Trade Unions representing CE Supervisors and in 2005 between FÁS and IMPACT provide for the payment of enhanced redundancy terms. The Union contends that this issue has previously been addressed by the Labour Court in LCR19611 and was further endorsed by the Circuit Court in 2010 (Record No. 2010/800).

The Union argues that the agreements remain in place as they were never cancelled or renegotiated when the Department of Social Protection took over the funding and administration of CE Schemes from FÁS in 2012. The Union is seeking that the Worker be paid enhanced redundancy terms in line with the provisions of the agreements in question.

Prior to the hearing the Employer furnished a written submission to the WRC wherein it stated that there would be no appearance by or on behalf of the Employer at the hearing but that it agreed with and supported the Worker’s claim to enhanced redundancy terms. It stated that its relationship with the Worker had been excellent in her 31 years of employment and that the Worker had been left in a vulnerable position. The Employer is seeking that the Department of Social Protection, as the funder of the CE Scheme, honour the agreements of 2002 and 2005 and fund the enhanced redundancy payment to the Worker.

In conducting my investigation, I have taken into account all relevant submissions presented to me by the parties.

I note the position of the parties that there is no dispute between them in relation to the merits of the Worker’s claim for enhanced redundancy terms. The issue facing the parties is that they are unable to obtain funding from the Department of Social Protection in relation to the Worker’s claim.

I further note the content of previous agreements concluded in 2002 and 2005 in relation to the redundancy of CE Scheme Supervisors and the Union’s submission is that the agreements remain in place and should apply to the Worker in this case.

The Rights Commissioner’s Service (as it then was) and the Labour Court  have previously dealt with this issue and recommended that the parties should jointly approach the funder for the cost of the enhanced redundancy terms. This approach was subsequently endorsed by the Circuit Court who ordered FÁS (the funder at the relevant time) to pay to the plaintiff/worker the enhanced redundancy payment due to her pursuant to the aforementioned agreements.

In circumstances where the Department of Social Protection took over the funding and administration of CE Schemes from FÁS in 2012 it is my view that the appropriate course of action is for the parties to jointly approach the Department and seek the funding in relation to the Worker’s claim.