Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD88762 Case Number: REA8724 Section / Act: S67 Parties: SEALINK - and - TRANSPORT SALARIED STAFFS ASSOCIATION |
Claims on behalf of five workers for disturbance payments. Claim (i) Messrs. Byrne and Smith (ii) Mr. A. Veltom and Mrs. C. Veltom (iii) Ms. I. Zambra.
Recommendation:
12. The Court, having considered the submissions made by the
parties, recommends that Messrs. Byrne and Smith should be paid
compensation on the same basis as that given to other staff.
The Court does not recommend concession of the other claims.
Division:
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD88762 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR12155
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 67
PARTIES: SEALINK
(REPRESENTED BY THE FEDERATED UNION OF EMPLOYERS)
and
TRANSPORT SALARIED STAFFS ASSOCIATION
SUBJECT:
1. Claims on behalf of five workers for disturbance payments.
Claim (i) Messrs. Byrne and Smith
(ii) Mr. A. Veltom and Mrs. C. Veltom
(iii) Ms. I. Zambra.
GENERAL BACKGROUND:
2. In 1986 the Company relocated its Head Quarters from North
Wall, Dublin to Adelaide House, Dun Laoghaire and also transferred
its passenger department from Westmoreland Street to the same
location. Some staff were also transferred to the Container
Terminal Alexandra Road. The Company and the Union had come to an
agreement that permanent staff who were transferred would receive
#1,000 disturbance payment. The Union claimed disturbance payment
of #1,000 each for five workers named above. The Company rejected
the claims. On the 27th July, 1988 the dispute was referred to
the Conciliation Service of the Labour Court. A Conciliation
Conference was held on the 19th August, 1988 but no agreement was
reached. The matter was referred to the Labour Court for
investigation and recommendation on the 11th October, 1988. A
Court hearing took place on the 17th November, 1988.
Claim (1) Messrs Byrne and Smith:
3. At the time of the transfer both employees were on temporary
assignments. Mr. Byrne was employed at the container terminal
Alexandra Road, and Mr. Smith was based at Dun Laoghaire pier.
The Union claimed #1,000 disturbance for each worker. The Company
rejected the claim but after local discussions offered #1,000
gross to the claimants. This offer was rejected by the Union.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. At the time of the transfer both staff members were
displaced and fortuitously covering positions in Dun Laoghaire
pier and the container terminal Alexandra Road and it had been
agreed with the (then) staff assistant that such displaced
staff would be allocated to the (then) North Wall Headquarters
building for the purposes of defining their "home station"
location. The Association argued that both employees should
receive the #1,000 individual allowance received by other
members.
2. In support of the contention that the two workers in
question should be treated no less favourably than other staff
all of whom received a cheque in the amount of #1,000 the
Company, in the course of a further higher level negotiating
meeting in May, 1988, indicated that they would be prepared to
make an offer of #1,000 to the two workers, on the
understanding that the amounts would be made through the
payroll. This was rejected by the Association on the basis
that the two staff members would receive a lower level of
disturbance allowance than their colleagues.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
5. 1. The Company rejected the Association's claim on the
grounds that in the case of Mr. Smith he was appointed to a
position in Dun Laoghaire pier on the 12th February, 1986
which was prior to the transfer of the Company head quarters
to Dun Laoghaire. The claim in respect of Mr. Byrne was
rejected also, as he was, at the time of transfer, a clerk
based at the container terminal Alexandra Road.
2. Further discussions were held with the Association in
1986, and the Company, while not conceding the claim, made an
offer of an ex gratia payment of #1,000 as a gesture of
goodwill. It is the Company's contention that the two
individuals concerned were not entitled to any disturbance
payments in 1986 and its offer of an ex gratia payment of
#1,000 is an extremely generous one.
6. CLAIM (11) MR. A. VELTOM AND MRS. C. VELTOM:
BACKGROUND:
The two employees were working in a temporary capacity at
Westmoreland Street and were subsequently appointed to the
permanent staff and transferred to Dun Laoghaire. The Union
sought disturbance payments of #1,000 in respect of each employee.
The Company rejected the claim. Due to a clerical error their
letter of appointment gave their base as Westmoreland Street.
This was corrected some time later when they were advised that Dun
Laoghaire was their base.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
7. 1. Prior to the transfer the two workers had been employed in
a temporary capacity in the Westmoreland Street Office for
some two years. Both employees had received letters of
appointment to the salaried staff prior to the transfer to the
new locations. When the question of the payment of a
disturbance allowance was raised in local negotiations the
Company argued that the letter of appointment to the permanent
salaried staff had issued in error and ought properly to have
allocated the two members to the proposed new premises in Dun
Laoghaire.
2. The Association does not accept the Company's contentions
in this connection and is of the view that the Company was
merely endeavouring to avoid payment of the agreed disturbance
payment to which the two workers are entitled.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
8. 1. At the time of transfer the two workers were employed as
temporary clerical staff at Westmoreland Street. They were
appointed to the permanent staff on the 12th February, 1986.
However a letter of appointment dated 14th February, 1986
inadvertently stated that they would be based at Westmoreland
Street. A subsequent letter dated 18th February, 1986
corrected this error and stated that they would be based at
Dun Laoghaire. It was always the Company's intention that
these positions would be based at Dun Laoghaire and for that
reason the Company rejected the Association's claim for a
disturbance payment. It should be noted that eight other
staff who were made permanent at the time have not referred
claims to the Court.
2. The Association's claim is based solely on a letter of
appointment which unintentionally referred to appointments to
positions at Westmoreland Street, rather than the new
location.
9. Claim (111) Ms. I. Zambra:
BACKGROUND:
Following a re-organisation of the Company's clerical
establishment in the Finance Department, Adelaide House, Dun
Laoghaire in 1987 a number of positions (including that of the
employee) were eliminated. The worker was offered voluntary
redundancy which she declined and was subsequently transferred to
a comparable position at the container terminal. The Union
lodged a claim for a disturbance payment of #1,000 which was
rejected by the Company.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
10. 1. As a result of the Company's action the employees post was
suppressed and she was declared surplus to requirements, and
moved to the Company's container terminal location. The Union
has claimed a disturbance payment of #1,000 on the grounds
that the employee had been forced to move to the container
terminal.
2. The Association takes the view that in essence this
worker's transfer albeit through displacement, was no less
imposed by the requirements of the Company than the transfer
of staff whose offices were moved from Westmoreland
Street/North Wall Quay to Dun Laoghaire/North Wall pier and
that the employee in question is fully entitled to the payment
of a disturbance allowance.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
11. 1. The Company agreed, in advance of the re-organisation,
that there would be no compulsory redundancy. Staff could
avail of a voluntary severance offer or accept an alternative
position within the organisation. As part of the agreement
reached with the Unions, a generous productivity payment was
made to all staff in full settlement of all claims arising
from the reorganisation. At no stage during the discussions
did the Unions lodge a claim in respect of staff who would be
required to transfer location within the Dublin area.
2. The Company has rejected the Union's claim as the transfer
was the result of a re-organisation and there was no precedent
for payments in those circumstances. Concession of this claim
would lead to serious knock-on effects for the Company as
there are other staff in similar circumstances following this
re-organisation.
RECOMMENDATION:
12. The Court, having considered the submissions made by the
parties, recommends that Messrs. Byrne and Smith should be paid
compensation on the same basis as that given to other staff.
The Court does not recommend concession of the other claims.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Nicholas Fitzgerald
_________________________
9th December, 1988 Deputy Chairman.
T.O'D./J.C.