A political party employee has failed to secure statutory redundancy for 43 years’ “long and distinguished” service after taking early retirement following the last general election.
The Workplace Relations Commission found against the worker in a wholly-anonymised recommendation on an industrial dispute with the party, published today.
The worker started as a party employee in 1981 and finished up after the 2024 general election, the tribunal was told at a hearing in August – a career spanning 43 years and nine taoisigh.
The politician for whom the claimant worked had been elected to “a different house of parliament”, and she would have had to relocate in order to stay on at his office, the WRC decision noted.
Following the 2024 general election, the worker applied for and received a voluntary early retirement package.
The worker, who was represented by Peter Glynn of Siptu, maintained she was treated less favourably than other political staff, who had received a statutory redundancy payment on top of the retirement package sum.
Though her pay and hours of work were not stated in the decision document published today, statutory redundancy for a full-time parliamentary support role would be worth tens of thousands of euro, subject to confirmation of PRSI contributions.
Under an arrangement dating back to 1997, the worker had been “red-circled”, giving her an an entitlement to stay on as a permanent employee of the party from election to election, the WRC noted.
This was in contrast to the other party staff in posts funded under the Oireachtas Parliamentary Assistance Scheme, whose employment contracts were linked to seats in the Dáil and Seanad and expired when politicians retired, resigned, or lost their seats.
Jack Lundy of Peninsula Business Services, the human resources consultancy representing the unidentified political party, argued that the worker was not dismissed and that her employment continued to exist.
It still had a “continuing obligation” to provide the claimant with work, and this could have been done by reassigning her to the office another politician or to “party duties”, Mr Lundy submitted.
In his recommendation on the case, adjudicator Breiffni O’Neill agreed with the political party’s argument that the worker could have been reassigned.
While he noted the worker’s position that other political staff had received both payments, he noted the specific comparator cited by SIPTU had been working for an Independent politician, rather than within a party.
“I accept that the worker had a long and distinguished record of service and that she genuinely believed that the position she occupied with the politician she was working for prior to the election in 2024 was coming to an end,” Mr O’Neill wrote.
“However, there was no suggestion that her employment with the employer would end following the election,” he wrote.
“I cannot make a recommendation in favour of the worker,” he concluded.
