Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD89497 Case Number: AD8956 Section / Act: S13(9) Parties: UNIVERSITY COLLEGE DUBLIN - and - MANUFACTURING SCIENCE FINANCE |
Appeal by the College against Rights Commissioner's Recommendation No. ST 127/89.
Recommendation:
5. The Court has considered the submissions from both parties,
and noted that payment has been made on previous occasions in
relation to staff moving from Lyons Estate to Belfield. The Court
is of the view that the College has not submitted any substantive
argument for altering the Rights Commissioner's Recommendation and
accordingly upholds the recommendation and rejects the appeal.
The Court so decides.
Division: Ms Owens Mr Shiel Ms Ni Mhurchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD89497 APPEAL DECISION NO. AD5689
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 13(9)
PARTIES: UNIVERSITY COLLEGE DUBLIN
and
MANUFACTURING SCIENCE FINANCE
SUBJECT:
1. Appeal by the College against Rights Commissioner's
Recommendation No. ST 127/89.
BACKGROUND:
2. This dispute concerns four technicians who are employed by the
College at the Lyons Estate. This is a farm near Newcastle,
County Dublin which is operated in connection with the activities
of the faculties of Agriculture and Veterinary Medicine. The
College proposes to transfer the four technicians from the Lyons
Estate to Belfield because of the likelihood of a reduction in
activities at the Estate. The Union on behalf of the workers,
sought compensation for the disturbance involved. The claim was
rejected by the College on the grounds of a Ministerial statement
in 1983, and the policy of the Higher Education Authority
(H.E.A.). The matter was submitted to a Rights Commissioner for
investigation and recommendation. On 27th April, 1989 the Rights
Commissioner issued the following recommendation:-
"The maximum disturbance that can be suffered in terms of
additional travel is forty miles per day (twenty miles each
way). I cannot see how, in equity, such an additional
on-cost can be ruled out by the application of a Government
Directive, which in any case, has been breached several times
since 1984, for valid reasons in this employment.
In the circumstances that only four members are involved I
recommend that the following scale of payments should apply,
based on actual additional travel in each case.
40 miles per day = #2,500
39 miles to 30 miles per day = #2,000
29 miles to 20 miles per day = #1,500
19 miles to 10 miles per day = #1,000
9 miles to 0 miles per day = # 500
On 7th July, 1989 the College appealed the Rights Commissioner's
Recommendation to the Labour Court under Sectionm 13(9) of the
Industrial Relations Act, 1969. A Court hearing took place in
Dublin on Friday, 4th August, 1989.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Labour Court has recommended in favour of compensation
in cases involving the relocation of College workers in the
past. (AD100/86 and AD24/87 refer). Both decisions were
accepted and implemented by both the College.
2. In AD24/87 a figure of #1,350 was awarded to the workers.
Applying the terms of the Programme for National Recovery to
this figure would bring it up to #1,420 approximately. The
Rights Commissioner recommended a scale of payments, with the
amount awarded to depend on the extra distance to be
travelled. In AD-4-1983 the College argued that "the major
factor determining compensation payments has been the distance
between the original place of employment and the new." The
Union contends that the Rights Commissioner's Recommendation
is fair and reasonable and should be upheld.
COLLEGE'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. This claim is one of approximately 10 submitted by various
unions and individuals, for payments for transfer to Belfield
from Merrion Street or Lyons Estate. Some of the claims have
been the subject of Rights Commissioner's Recommendations
which have been appealed by the College while some others have
yet to be considered. The cost of implementation of Rights
Commissioner's Recommendation ST 127/89 would be, as estimated
by the College, #6,000 approximately. This is but one of a
number of claims, and the potential total cost to the College
must be borne in mind when considering the matter.
2. The College has suffered severe financial cutbacks as a
result of reductions in grant income in the past two years and
has been obliged to seek economies wherever it could. As a
result considerable reductions in staff numbers and in certain
services have been made so that the College may be able to
exist within its income. In view of its financial
difficulties the College cannot entertain claims from staff
members for disturbance payments on account of their transfer
from Lyons Estate to Belfield.
3. In 1983 the Minister for the Public Service issued a
statement which declared inter alia that -
"The payment of disturbance allowances to public servants
who are relocated in modern offices, often not very far
away and sometimes nearer their homes, can no longer be
considered justified. Accordingly, the Government has
decided that no payments will be made in respect of moves
which take place on or after 1st January, 1984. The
Government intend that other public sector employers
should act in similar fashion. They also urge that
private sector employers should consider adopting similar
attitude."
In 1987 the H.E.A. issued a reminder that disturbance payments
should not be made and that funds would not be provided to
meet them (details supplied to the Court). The College is
obliged to follow the policy laid down by the Government and
the H.E.A. and accordingly it has resisted all claims for the
payment of disturbance money. In the light of the above the
College believes that the Rights Commissioner's Recommendation
should be rejected, and asks the Court to so recommend.
DECISION:
5. The Court has considered the submissions from both parties,
and noted that payment has been made on previous occasions in
relation to staff moving from Lyons Estate to Belfield. The Court
is of the view that the College has not submitted any substantive
argument for altering the Rights Commissioner's Recommendation and
accordingly upholds the recommendation and rejects the appeal.
The Court so decides.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Evelyn Owens
_________________________
18th August, 1989 Deputy Chairman.
P.F./J.C.