Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD87704 Case Number: LCR11503 Section / Act: S67 Parties: PHILIPS ELECTRONICS - and - ITGWU |
Claim on behalf of nine operatives for disturbance compensation.
Recommendation:
5. The Court, having considered the submissions made by the
parties, recommends that the Company should amend its offer to
provide for
(i) a commuter ticket, or its equivalent in cash, for a period
of two years from the date of transfer, and
(ii) a lump sum payment of #500 nett at the end of the two year
period.
The Court recommends that the Union accept this offer.
Division: Mr Fitzgerald Mr Shiel Mr O'Murchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD87704 THE LABOUR COURT LCR11503
CC871164 INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR11503
Parties: PHILIPS ELECTRONICS IRELAND LIMITED
(Represented by the Federated Union of Employers)
and
IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION (NO.2 BRANCH)
Subject:
1. Claim on behalf of nine operatives for disturbance
compensation.
Background:
2. The claimants are all employees of Telecommunications Limited
(TCL) and are based in Finglas. Philips Electronics Ireland
Limited, based in Clonskeagh, is the parent company of TCL. The
claim is for compensation for disturbance arising out of a
decision by Management to relocate the Home Sales and Service
Departments of TCL to the Philips Electronics site in Clonskeagh,
a distance of approximately 11 miles.
Following local level discussions, the Union lodged the following
claim on the Company:
- monthly commuter ticket or value thereof to cater for on-going
expenses,
- lump sum of #2,500 per member to cater for the initial
dislocation,
- ten hours per week travelling time.
Management responded by offering the monthly commuter ticket for a
year only. As this was unacceptable to the Union the matter was
referred to the conciliation service of the Labour Court on the
16th July, 1987. At a conciliation conference held on the 20th
August, the Union amended its claim by dropping the travelling
time section and by reducing the lump sum element to #2,000 per
employee. This was still unacceptable to Management which offered
to pay a lump sum of #200 to each worker a year after the move, in
addition to its existing offer of the monthly commuter ticket for
a year. A further conciliation conference, held on the 3rd
September, failed to resolve the issue and on the 17th September,
the issue was referred to the Labour Court for investigation and
recommendation. A Court hearing was held on the 7th October,
1987.
Union's arguments:
3. (a) The Court should note that this is a serious case of
disturbance and dislocation, involving a considerable
distance of approximately twelve miles and is not just
another "round the block" claim.
(b) The claimants have no choice whatsoever with regard to
the move. If they want their jobs they must go to
Clonskeagh otherwise they must face the dole queue.
(c) The decision is Management's alone and, in the Union's
view, the total responsibility is its alone also. The
move is not an economic or operational necessity per se
as neither Company's fortunes will progress or diminish
arising from the move or the lack of move. The transfer
is due to Philip's world-wide policy of bringing domestic
sales and service under the one roof for greater
administrative and marketing convenience.
(d) The workers concerned have all worked in TCL Finglas for
a considerable period of time (up to 13 years service).
The vast majority live on the North-side of the city, in
one case the north county area. Indeed there is a very
close spatial relationship between home and place of work
and travel time and cost have been major factors in the
decision to go and work in TCL Finglas in the first
place. Furthermore, by not opting for redundancy in the
1986 rationalisation plan, these workers were
re-affirming their commitment to staying and working in
Finglas.
(e) In reality, the disturbance incurred, not only in terms
of the actual cost in time and money but the dislocation
to family and social life and the network of working
relationships built up over many years, cannot be fully
compensated for.
(f) The implications of the move are a decrease in nett pay
for the claimants of approximately #10.00 per week and an
average increase in the working week of 10 hours per week
both on-going. The original Union claim was constructed
to meet the quantifiable needs of the claimants and to
maintain the 'status quo' in regard to their conditions
of employment. The revised position is based on the very
simple premise that if the workers are prepared to take
on the extra travelling time, then the very least that
Management can do is to take on the extra cost incurred
to at least leave their nett pay intact, thereby
retaining the status quo in that aspect of their
conditions.
Company's arguments:
4. (a) The transfer from Finglas to Clonskeagh arises out of a
need to rationalise the Company's activities in a very
competitive trading environment. The transfer is
therefore in the best interests of the Company and its
employees in that it helps to consolidate their long term
future by putting the Company's activity on a more firm
commercial basis.
(b) The Company recognises that the claimants, none of whom
have Company cars, will be disturbed as a result of the
move and in making its offer sought to address this
problem. To consider an on-going settlement as is being
claimed for up to ten years would create serious problems
for both Companies. It would give rise to a situation
where a minority of TCL employees' benefit from an
on-going payment in respect of travelling to work while
the majority of TCL and all of Philips employees are not
entitled to any such payment.
(c) It is firmly established that payment in respect of
travelling to work, in the context of a fixed place of
work, is not normally paid on an on-going basis.
Previous Labour Court recommendations have supported this
argument (details supplied to the Court).
Recommendation:
5. The Court, having considered the submissions made by the
parties, recommends that the Company should amend its offer to
provide for
(i) a commuter ticket, or its equivalent in cash, for a period
of two years from the date of transfer, and
(ii) a lump sum payment of #500 nett at the end of the two year
period.
The Court recommends that the Union accept this offer.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
2nd November, 1987 Nicholas Fitzgerald
DH/PG Deputy Chairman