Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD88624 Case Number: LCR12038 Section / Act: S67 Parties: MODERN ALARMS LIMITED - and - IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS UNION |
(a) Compensation for relocation. (b) Compensation for loss of overtime earnings.
Recommendation:
9. The Court, having considered the submissions made by the
parties, recommends that the Company should negotiate with the
trade union the compensation to be paid to the individuals who
suffered significant inconvenience in travelling to the new
location.
On the question of compensation for loss of overtime, the Court
recommends that the Company pay the claimants 25% of their
overtime earnings for the year August, 1986 to July, 1987.
Division: Mr Fitzgerald Mr Collins Mr Devine
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD88624 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR12038
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 67
PARTIES: MODERN ALARMS LIMITED
(Represented by the Federated Union of Employers)
and
IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS UNION
SUBJECT:
1. (a) Compensation for relocation.
(b) Compensation for loss of overtime earnings.
GENERAL BACKGROUND:
2. The Company's business is the installation, maintenance and
monitoring of electronic security alarms. The claim for
compensation for relocation was the subject of a Labour Court
conciliation conference held on 30th October, 1986. It was agreed
that further local level discussions would be held. Subsequently
the Union and the Company became engaged in discussions on
rationalisation/redundancy which lasted throughout most of 1987.
On 20th May, 1988, the claim for compensation for relocation and
for loss of overtime earnings were the subject of a further Labour
Court conciliation conference. As no agreement was reached at the
concialiation conference both claims were referred to the Court
for investigation and recommendation. The hearing took place on
9th September, 1988.
Claim (a) - compensation for relocation:
Background:
3. In June, 1986, the Company moved staff from Stillorgan (10%)
and Eccles Street (90%), to Sandwith Street, Dublin 2. There were
two service staff, six administration staff and ten Central
Station Controllers moved, a total of eighteen. The Union sought
compensation of #1,000 per person. The claim was rejected by the
Company. The workers agreed to co-operate with the move while
processing the claim for compensation. Nine of the original
eighteen claimants have left the Company, mainly through
redundancy. The present claim is on behalf of eight of the
remaining staff. The Company was prepared to consider individual
claims but not an "across the board" payment.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The claim for compensation is not based on travel
disruption alone but also on the general disruption and
inconvenience caused. The Union is seeking an "across the
board" payment of #1000 per person (details of additional
travel and cost were supplied to the Court). A precedent
exists in the Company since an "across the board" payment of
#100 per person was made some years ago at the time of the
move from Grafton Street to Eccles Street. The Labour Court
has also awarded compensation in the case of similar moves
(examples cited).
2. The canteen facilities in the new premises are totally
inadequate with room for only 5/6 persons at a time compared
with room for 25 in the Eccles Street premises. There are no
changing facilities despite the fact that Controllers must
wear uniforms and there are inadequate toilet facilities.
There is a difficulty in relation to car parking and a
constant threat of vandalism and robbery.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
5. 1. The Company is prepared to consider individual claims for
compensation arising from the relocation but is not preapred
to make an "across the board" payment. The move has not
resulted in uniform circumstances for all the claimants. The
payment made some years ago of #100 per person for relocation
should not be used as a precedent and, in any case, was
consideraly less than the figure of #1,000 now claimed.
2. The building to which the staff moved was renovated and
"purpose refurbished", at a substantial cost, to facilitate a
Central Station, offices, showroom etc. It now constitutes a
modern workplace far superior to the accommodation in Eccles
Street. The Company does not accept that the claimants are
experiencing parking difficulties.
Claim (b) - compensation for loss of overtime earnings:
Background:
6. Arising from changes in manning in the Central Station (the
alarm monitoring unit) the Union, in January, 1988, sought
compensation for loss of overtime on behalf of the five Central
Station Controllers. The claim was quantified as 80% of the loss
over a two year period. The Company had offered non Union staff
compensation of 15% of the loss over a twelve month period (an
average of #400 to #600 per person). The same offer was made to
the five controllers but was not acceptable to them.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
7. 1. The five Central Station Controllers have enjoyed the
benefit of substantial overtime earnings for a considerable
period of time. The reduction in this overtime since
October, 1987, has had a very serious detrimental effect on
their standard of living. The Company's offer cannot be
regarded as a genuine effort to compensate them. The fact
that a small number of non-Union staff have accepted the
Company offer should not be regarded as sufficient grounds
for Union members to accept these terms. The Union is
seeking compensation of 80% of the loss over a two year
period.
2. The Labour Court has, in many previous cases, awarded
reasonable compensation to workers for loss of overtime
earnings (examples cited).
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
8. 1. Because of the contracting market in which it operates,
the Company recently underwent a major rationalisation/
redundancy programme. As part of this programme an attempt
to curtail overtime costs was made, in particular the
abolition of holiday relief overtime. Overtime has not been
completely abolished.
2. The five claimants have been offered what has already
been accepted by their six (non-Union) colleagues i.e. 15% of
their gross overtime earnings for the year August 1986 to
July 1987. The specific figures in the case of the five
claimants would be -
1) #296.63
2) #283.56
3) #250.77
4) #908.50
5) #413.63
The Company sees no reason why the claimants should be given
preferential treatment.
RECOMMENDATION:
9. The Court, having considered the submissions made by the
parties, recommends that the Company should negotiate with the
trade union the compensation to be paid to the individuals who
suffered significant inconvenience in travelling to the new
location.
On the question of compensation for loss of overtime, the Court
recommends that the Company pay the claimants 25% of their
overtime earnings for the year August, 1986 to July, 1987.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Nicholas Fitzgerald
14th October, 1988 --------------------
A.K./P.W. Deputy Chairman