Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD88783 Case Number: LCR12145 Section / Act: S67 Parties: SEALINK LIMITED - and - TRANSPORT SALARIED STAFFS' ASSOCIATION |
Dispute concerning the relocation of a provincially based worker to Dublin.
Recommendation:
5. The Court, having considered the submissions from both parties
is of the view that the proposal which emanated at conciliation is
reasonable and recommends that it be accepted.
Division: Ms Owens Mr Collins Mr Devine
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD88783 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR12145
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 67
PARTIES: SEALINK LIMITED
(REPRESENTED BY THE FEDERATED UNION OF EMPLOYERS)
AND
TRANSPORT SALARIED STAFFS' ASSOCIATION
SUBJECT:
1. Dispute concerning the relocation of a provincially based
worker to Dublin.
BACKGROUND:
2. In a re-organisation of its sales and marketing functions in
Ireland, the Company decided to close down a number of its sales
outlets. As a result of this rationalisation, two clerical
employees (one in Waterford, represented by the ITGWU, and one in
Galway represented by the TSSA) were relocated to Dublin.
Following local level discussions concerning the payment of
resettlement and disturbance allowances, the Company put forward
the following offer:
Reimbursement of necessary expenses regarding sale/purchase on
property
a) 1. Legal fees
2. Stamp Duty
3. Agents Fees etc.
4. Survey Fees
b) Reimbursement of removal charges
c) Resettlement and disturbance allowance - #3,800
d) Either (i) Reimbursement of 75% of interest on
additional mortgage over 5 years, subject
to a ceiling of #15,000 additional
mortgage
or
(ii) A maximum lump sum payment of #5,000
based on the maximum additional mortgage
to be paid on a pro-rata basis in two
stages (i) upon completion and
(ii) after 6 months.
payment under items (c) and (d) will be subject to tax
liabilities.
At a further local level meeting on the 6th May, 1988, this offer
was rejected and the matter was again referred to the conciliation
service of the Labour Court (it had originally been referred in
November, 1987, but was referred back to local discussions). At
a conciliation conference held on the 21st July, 1988 a proposal
emerged which the two Unions agreed to recommend for acceptance,
viz: that each of the two claimants be paid an additional sum of
#2,000 in full and final settlement of all claims relating to
their transfers and that the Company pay the lump sum in lieu of
the mortgage subsidy (which is contingent on a higher mortgage) in
one moiety instead of two. The offer was accepted by the worker
in Waterford but the claimant rejected it and the matter was
referred to the Labour Court for investigation and recommendation.
A Court hearing was held on the 10th November, 1988.
ASSOCIATION'S ARGUMENTS:
3.1 The Company's initial offer of a #50 per week lodging
allowance and #3,800 resettlement and disturbance allowance
was less favourable than arrangements agreed in respect of
Sealink staff who had transferred following the cessation of
the Waterford/Fishguard service in March, 1977. Those
arrangements incorporated the payment of an appropriate sum
to offset up to 25% of the total new house mortgage for a
period not exceeding ten years and included the offer of an
interest-free loan up to #2,000, recoverable over a ten year
period. The Association has insisted that the incorporation
of such an element in the total resettlement and disturbance
allowances is fully justified. For their part, the Company's
representatives insisted that the agreement negotiated in
respect of the Waterford staff in 1977 is not relevant in
present day terms.
3.2 The Company's offer of April, 1988, was rejected on the basis
that the workers in question had suffered a double penalty by
on the one hand being forced to move to a higher cost area
and on the other suffering a considerable reduction in
earnings. The Association has made it clear that a lump sum
payment should be offered to the claimant to take account of
the difference in price of comparable housing in the two
locations.
3.3 Against the background of his being forcefully returned to a
central location following his aspirations to a high earnings
position in Galway, the claimant considered the proposal
which emerged at conciliation to be inadequate. Whilst he
expects to have to continue paying a mortgage it is his view
that it is incumbent upon the Company to make good any
additional cost arising in acquiring comparable housing in
the Dublin area.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4.1 The Company is aware that moving house is an expensive time
for an employee but is convinced that the relocation package
offered more than meets its obligations. All expenditure
disbursed in relation to house sale and purchase is
reimbursed, a lump sum of #3,800 is paid, plus an amount of
money based on interest paid on additional mortgage. In
addition, the claimant has been in receipt of a lodging
allowance of #200 per month from October, 1987 to March, 1988
and #300 per month since.
4.2 The Company has gone to great lengths to ensure that the
claimant's personal circumstances have been accommodated in
the relocation package.
4.3 The package is expensive from a Company perspective and
Management is greatly concerned that the Union should have
ignored the scope of packages offered on relocation by other
companies in the country.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. The Court, having considered the submissions from both parties
is of the view that the proposal which emanated at conciliation is
reasonable and recommends that it be accepted.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court,
1st December, 1988 Evelyn Owens,
DH/MF Deputy Chairman.