Reject Implementation of Croke Park Deal!‏

national | worker & community struggles and protests | opinion/analysis Monday January 17, 2011 13:27 by Paddy Healy

Accepting the second and third level implementation means agreeing to the Croke Park Deal as a whole. These proposed implementations are now available on TUI website.

I will circulate a detailed analysis shortly. But firstly, I deal with the consequences of agreeing to the Deal as a whole below.

Would Accepting Implementations of Croke Park Deal at second and third levels protect members from compulsory redundancy and further pay cuts?

“NO” is the answer. By Signing Up TO Croke Park Deal, The Union Would be Agreeing to Compulsory Redundancy For the First Time!

The Croke Park Agreement contained two clauses relevant to this issue.

6. The Government gives a commitment that compulsory redundancy will not apply within the public service, save where existing exit provisions apply. This commitment is subject to compliance with the terms of this Agreement and, in particular, to the agreed flexibility on redeployment being delivered. To that end, the redeployment arrangements referred to below will include opportunities for re-skilling and re-assignment as a key method to retain and secure employment in comparable roles in the public service.

28. The implementation of this Agreement is subject to no currently unforeseen budgetary deterioration.

It is not widely understood that the government escape clause (28 above) applies to the “no compulsory redundancy” clause (6 above) as well as to the assurance of no further pay cuts and the process of pay restoration.

There is a review of progress in “restructuring the public service” due in Autumn 2011 as pat of the agreement with EU/IMF. The Minister for Finance has said that this will encompass the Croke Park Deal. What an ideal opportunity to pull out of any commitment to “no compulsory redundancies”. If the “no” unions have signed up for the deal by then, contracts of employment will have been irreversibly changed. Government could even renege on the conditional “no compulsory redundancy” assurance at any time because of the current budgetary situation. Indeed the new government to be installed in March 2011 will be even in a better position to renege. Inevitably, in order to cover itself for continuing with the policies of the old government, it will claim that the books were cooked and that the fiscal position is much worse than was believed!

Even if government did not renege, the assurance of no compulsory redundancy terminates in 2014.

In addition, it is not clear to whom the no compulsory redundancy provision applies. Many people in temporary posts have already had their employment terminated.

Now the HSE has made several CID holders redundant, claiming that the assurance does not apply to them! (IMPACT which has ratified Croke Park is taking the issue to the Labour Court)

The threat of redundancy is now being used to force members of unions which voted “no” to the Deal to comply with it or lose their jobs. (The threat that the pensions of public servants, members of non-compliant unions, retiring in 2011 would reflect the pay cut is also being used)

By continuing to reject Croke Park Deal Redundancies can be Resisted!

While there is no statutory provision for public service permanency, it is strong custom and practice stretching back to the era of British rule. This is reinforced by the fact that public servants employed prior to the mid-nineties are not covered by the Redundancy Payments Scheme.
There are no compelling legal judgements in this state on the issue. However, the British Law Lords found in favour of a British public servant on the issue stating that permanence in the public service meant retention in employment until pensionable age. A contrary decision by a lower court was overturned.( McClelland v Northern Ireland General Health Services). while this decision is not compelling in this state, it is a strong argument in an Irish court.

Any redundancy could be contested in court. Irrespective of the law, public service unions rejecting the DEAL are in a position to insist that permanence to retiring age was a condition of employment in industrial relations terms. Compulsory redundancy could be contested in the Labour Court and it would form a legitimate basis for industrial action.

It is suicidal to negotiate under threat of compulsory redundancy!

paddy.healy@eircom.net