Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD8729 Case Number: LCR11005 Section / Act: S67 Parties: CIE - and - TSSA |
Claim, on behalf of approximately 50 administrative staff for payment of disturbance allowance in respect of their proposed transfer from Pearse Station to North Wall arising from the restructuring of the Company.
Recommendation:
5. In the circumstances of this case the Court does not consider
that payment of disturbance allowance is justified and accordingly
does not recomment concession of the Union's claim.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court.
Evelyn Owens
___________________
12th__February,__1987.
A. K. / M. F. Deputy Chairman.
Division: Ms Owens Mr McHenry Mr O'Murchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD8729 THE LABOUR COURT LCR11005
CC86515 INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR11005
PARTIES: CORAS IOMPAIR EIREANN
AND
TRANSPORT SALARIED STAFFS ASSOCIATION
Subject:
1. Claim, on behalf of approximately 50 administrative staff for
payment of disturbance allowance in respect of their proposed
transfer from Pearse Station to North Wall arising from the
restructuring of the Company.
Background:
2. The Company has since 1st February, 1987 been restructured so
that there now exists a Holding Company (C.I.E.) and three
subsidiary companies - Irish Rail, Irish Bus and Dublin Bus.
Claims arising from the proposed restructuring were referred to
the conciliation service of the Labour Court on 13th March, 1986
and were the subject of a conciliation conference on 18th April,
1986. The question of disturbance payment, while raised, was not
pursued at that time. The headquarters of Irish Rail is to be at
Connolly Station, of Irish Bus at Broadstone, of Dublin Bus at
O'Connell Street, Dublin and the headquarters of the Holding
Company is to be at Heuston Station. The restructuring
necessitates a reallocation of staff and the transfer of some
staff to new locations. The Company decided that the staff of the
Chief Civil Engineer's Department should be moved from Pearse
Station to North Wall to make way for railway staff at Pearse
Station, arising from other transfers elsewhere. The staff of the
Chief Civil Engineer's Department objected to this proposed move.
The Union wrote to the Company's Chairman in May and July, 1986,
formalising these objections, raising the question of disturbance
allowance and requesting that there should be no movement of staff
prior to full consultation and agreement with the Union. The
Company replied in August, 1986 stating the reasons why the move
was necessary and that there was no satisfactory alternative to
the proposal. No mention of disturbance compensation was made.
The issue lay dormant while the legislation concerning the
restructuring was being processed in the Dail. In early December,
1986 staff at Pearse Station were informed that the move was to
take place in January, 1987. The Union again wrote to the Company
concerning the question of disturbance compensation. On 9th
January, the Chief Civil Engineer replied stating that the Company
was not in a position to pay a disturbance allowance and that
arrangements were being made to implement the transfer on 19th
January, 1987. Meetings then took place at local level. The
Union sought the application of existing disturbance agreements
relating to transfers within the Dublin area. The Company
rejected this stating that normal conditions do not apply in this
case and that since 1st January, 1984, disturbance payments have
not applied. On the 16th January, 1987 both parties requested
that the matter be referred to the Court for investigation and
recommendation. The transfer arrangements were to be suspended in
the meantime. A Court hearing took place on 23rd January, 1987.
Union's arguments:
3. (i) Agreements between the Company and the Trade Unions
concerning disturbance allowance have existed for
about 13 years. The following are the current
relevant provisions in respect of disturbance
allowance for urban transfer involving clerical and
executive grade staff:-
Change of depot within an urban area, excluding
transfer within a depot or between adjoining depots:
#70 for first 5 years service
#9.50 for each completed year of service thereafter.
These entitlements still exist despite the Government
decision of November, 1983, that the payment of
disturbance allowances to employees of public bodies
should be discontinued. The Union seeks the
application of these provisions in this instance.
(ii) The proposed transfer will result in considerable
inconvenience to the workers concerned. Pearse
Station is a city centre location, directly on the
D.A.R.T. line, facilitating staff in travelling to
and from work. The bus service to and from North
Wall does not compare with the flexibility and
regularity of the services currently available at
Pearse Station.
(iii) The North Wall Area is lacking in amenities such as
shops, restaurants and leisure facilities. The lack
of facilities and overall ambience of the area have
always proved deterrents in the past to staff
transfers and in this case the transfer would bring
about a distinct worsening of working conditions.
The Union has always insisted on payment of
disturbance allowance for such transfers.
(iv) The movement of 45 salaried staff was the subject of
a similar dispute in 1980. On that occasion a Rights
Commissioner recommended that the normal disturbance
allowance be paid to all staff involved in the
transfer. The Labour Court upheld this decision, on
appeal.
(v) The Transport (Re-organisation of C.I.E.) Act 1986
states that "save in accordance with a collective
agreement negotiated with any Trade Union concerned,
every person, who before vesting day is an Officer or
servant of the Board shall not ...... be brought to
less beneficial conditions of service than ...... the
conditions of service to which he was subject
immediately before vesting day."
(vi) Appropriate local consultation has not been
formalised between management and the workers
regarding the proposed new office accommodation,
provision of canteen and other service facilities.
(vii) The duties of professional and technical staff
attached to the Chief Civil Engineers Department
demand a great deal of mobility. The lack of
suitable parking facilities and the minimal
availability of company transport at the North Wall
location will mean an ongoing higher degree of
inconvenience to the staff concerned.
Company's arguments:
4. (a) The restructuring of C.I.E. arises from a Government
decision which has been confirmed by legislation under
the Transport (Re-organisation of C.I.E.) Act, 1986.
To achieve the restructuring requires the setting up of
headquarters for each new Company and for the Holding
Company and the appointment of the necessary management
and staff mainly by the allocation of existing C.I.E.
staff to the new companies. It is also necessary to
provide adequate accommodation for the staff of the
individual companies. This requires the transfer of
blocks of staff from one location to another. It is in
this context that the transfer of the Chief Civil
Engineer's Headquarters staff from Pearse Station to
North Wall is necessary. In October, 1985 the Board of
C.I.E. authorised expenditure in excess of #600,000 for
carrying out the necessary alterations, refurbishment
and provision of office accommodation for the
restructured Companies at North Wall, Connolly Station,
Bus Arus, Broadstone and O'Connell Street. This work
has now reached the stage at which no further work can
be carried out without relocation of staff. The
premises at 50/60 North Wall have been completed for
some time with a view to their occupation by the
Headquarters staff of the Chief Civil Engineer's
Department about the end of 1986. These premises have
equivalent if not superior accommodation and facilities
to those already enjoyed at Pearse Station and conform
fully with the requirements of the Office Premises Act,
1958.
(b) On 29th January, 1986 the staff indicated their
opposition to the proposed relocation mainly on the
grounds that the location at North Wall was
environmentally unsuitable. It was pointed out that
since the Company already had substantial numbers of
staff in executive, clerical, supervisory and operative
grades employed there, objections on these grounds
could not be accepted.
(c) The Company did re-examine the proposed transfer but
found no suitable alternative arrangement.
(d) The Company, as it is required to do, raised the matter
of the payment of disturbance allowance to staff who
would be required to transfer on the restructuring of
the Company with the Department of Communications and
was advised by the Department that the payment of a
disturbance allowance in this case could not be agreed
to on the grounds that:-
" (i) payment of disturbance allowances would run
counter to the Government decision of October,
1983 (details of which were forwarded to
C.I.E.) that disturbance allowances would no
longer be paid in the public sector from 1984
onwards; and
(ii) payment of the disturbance allowances now
sought would not fall within the limited
grounds for exemption (i.e. existing formal
productivity schemes or existing
re-organisation schemes) approved by the
Department of the Public Service."
The Company conveyed this information to the Union stating
also that the Company is not in a position to pay a
disturbance allowance in this case.
(e) The allocation and transfer of staff including the move
of the Chief Civil Engineer's staff to North Wall stem
directly from the Government decision to restructure
C.I.E. and not from a decision of the Company itself to
implement a scheme of re-organisation. The Company,
therefore, submits that, in addition to the decision of
the Minister for Communications that disturbance
payments may not be made, the circumstances in this
case differ to those in which disturbance payments have
been made within the Company i.e. for productivity
schemes or schemes of re-organisation.
(f) Concession of this claim would result in similar claims
from other groups of employees who will be required to
transfer to new locations under the restructuring of
the Company. The estimated repercussive cost of making
disturbance payments is #67,000. Strict Government
subvention requirements exist for C.I.E.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. In the circumstances of this case the Court does not consider
that payment of disturbance allowance is justified and accordingly
does not recomment concession of the Union's claim.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court.
Evelyn Owens
___________________
12th__February,__1987.
A. K. / M. F. Deputy Chairman.