Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD87213 Case Number: LCR11153 Section / Act: S67 Parties: MASSER HAMMOND LTD - and - ITGWU;ITGWU |
Claim for compensation for disturbance.
Recommendation:
5. Having regard to the circumstances under which the change of
location was forced upon the Company, the Court does not recommend
concession of the claim.
Division: Mr O'Connell Mr Collins Mr O'Murchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD87213 THE LABOUR COURT LCR11153
CC861843
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR11153
Parties: MASSER HAMMOND LIMITED
and
IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION
Subject:
1. Claim for compensation for disturbance.
Background:
2. The Company is a subsidiary of the T.M.G. Group, which is in
turn associated with the Smurfit Group. The Company recently
moved its premises from a location on the Naas Road to a premises
at Ballymount Road, Walkinstown (1.50 miles away). The Union, on
behalf of its six members served a claim on the Company for one
hours travelling time per member based on disturbance and the
extra cost to them arising out of the relocation. (The Union
stated to the Court that another union in the Company had also
made a claim on behalf of its members). The Company rejected the
claim stating that the move was forced upon it by economic
circumstances and the new location and the facility attaching to
it were superior in every way to the old one.
The move and the extent of the disturbance was extremely small.
Any concession of the Union's claim would have knock on effects.
Agreement could not be reached at local level, and on 11th
November, 1986, the matter was referred to the conciliation
service of the Labour Court. A conciliation conference took place
on 6th February, 1987. No agreement was reached, and on 6th
March, 1987, the matter was referred to the Labour Court for
investigation and recommendation. A Court hearing took place on
13th April, 1987.
Union's arguments:
3. (a) During the course of negotiations on the 25th wage
round (expiring 31/5/87), the possibility of a move of
premises emerged. Accordingly the parties agreed to
the inclusion of a specific clause in the agreement to
provide for the negotiation of terms for such a move
viz:-
"No cost-increasing claims for the duration of the
agreement provided that the "status quo" applies to
the location of the business."
The right to negotiate separately for disturbance was a
very important consideration for the Union and the
above mentioned clause was an equally important factor
in gaining acceptance of the round agreement. By
refusing to negotiate and settle terms of compensation
for disturbance, either before or after the move,
Management are, in the Union view, in breach of the
25th wage round agreement.
(b) A move of 1.5 miles is considerable by any yardstick,
and for Management to suggest, as they have done, that
such a move is inconsequential is nonsense.
(c) The disturbance and cost engendered by such a move is
also considerable particularly in the areas of
travelling time, cost of travel, and extra meal cost as
the following will demonstrate:
Member A Gross Weekly
Extra Cost
Extra Travelling time - 40 minutes #20.00 at o/t rate
per day
Extra Travel Cost 90p per day #8.50
(bus)
Extra Meal Cost 65p per day #6.50
____________
#35.00
Member B
Extra Travelling Time 20 minutes 11.00 at o/t rate
per day
Extra Travel Cost #1.50 per #3.00
week (bus
Extra Meal Cost 65p per day #6.50
__________
#20.50
==========
The extra meal cost is the amount required to buy the
same type of meal in the new canteen as was available
at a lower price in the old one. The gross figures on
the right-hand side relate to the amount the worker
would have to earn in order to cover or defray the
items concerned.
(d) The Union feels quite justified in seeking the
compensation specified in the claim as being a simple
and equitable means of reimbursing our members on an
ongoing basis for the various elements of disturbance
which themselves are of an ongoing nature.
(e) The principle of such compensation is well established
and well known to the Court and is evidenced by the
wealth of third party recommendations over the years as
well as the wealth of union/management agreements.
Company's arguments:
4. (i) It seems to management that the claim should not
succeed because it does not have universal support
among the labour force. The move was forced on
management by the action of the owners of the premises
who sought to impose on the Company a rent and charge
it could not afford.
(ii) The present premises were given to management as a
result of their plan for the continuing rescue of the
Company. Even then the group has to accept that
Ballymount Road will have to have a continued rent
subsidy. The alternative was closure with a loss of 42
jobs.
(iii) At local level it is obvious that the Ballymount Road
location is vastly superior to the old run-down, almost
derelict building, that was the Naas Road. The
standard of accommodation is modern, well appointed and
represents working conditions on a par with the most
modern of office accommodation.
(iv) It would be unreasonable to raise the question of
disturbance payment with Smurfit's, who would find it
difficult to believe that such a Company in its poor
financial position could make such payments. The claim
has already jeopardised the Company's future funding
and concession of the claim would seriously question
any future investment with the Company and maintenance
of existing levels of employment. For all of these
reasons, the Company requests the Court to reject the
Union's claim.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. Having regard to the circumstances under which the change of
location was forced upon the Company, the Court does not recommend
concession of the claim.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
John O'Connell
__________________________
Deputy Chairman
7th May, 1987
P.F./J.C.