Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD89495 Case Number: AD8957 Section / Act: S13(9) Parties: UNIVERSITY COLLEGE DUBLIN - and - MANUFACTURING SCIENCE AND FINANCE |
Appeal by the College against Rights Commissioner's Recommendation No. S.T. 46/89.
Recommendation:
5. The Court having considered the Rights Commissioner's
recommendation and taking into account the submissions made by the
parties, and particularly the special circumstances of this case
where the workers involved organised and almost completed the move
which entailed dismantling and relocation of equipment etc., in
the period between receipt of the recommendation and an appeal
being lodged, the Court decides to uphold the Rights
Commissioner's Recommendation.
Division: Ms Owens Mr Shiel Ms Ni Mhurchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD89495 APPEAL DECISION NO. AD5789
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 13(9)
PARTIES: UNIVERSITY COLLEGE DUBLIN
and
MANUFACTURING SCIENCE AND FINANCE
SUBJECT:
1. Appeal by the College against Rights Commissioner's
Recommendation No. S.T. 46/89.
BACKGROUND:
2. This dispute concerns 31 technicians who are currently located
at the College's Engineering faculty at Merrion Street. A number
of years ago, the College was authorised to build a new
Engineering Building at the Belfield Campus. It is intended that
the move will be completed before October, 1989. Virtually all of
the staff currently located at Merrion Street will transfer to
Belfield, including the 31 workers here concerned. The Union, on
behalf of the workers, sought the payment of compensation for the
disturbance involved. The College rejected the claim on the basis
of a statement by the Minister for the Public Service in 1983 and
a circular from the Higher Education Authority (H.E.A.) in 1987.
The matter was the subject of a Rights Commissioner's
recommendation who on 27th April, 1989 issued the following
recommendation in the matter.
"Several settlements have been agreed since the Government's
circular. These were related to the special circumstances of
College Employment. Some of these were recommended by the
Labour Court. In these circumstances I feel justified in
making a positive recommendation. Due to the numbers
involved, living in thirteen different Dublin Postal Areas,
and nine living in satellites stretching from Maynooth to
Bray, it is not equitable to make a recommendation based on
three degrees of inconvenience.
Instead I choose the principle of actual loss based on
additional distance from home to work and return. Since this
distance cannot be greater than twice the difference between
Merrion Street and Belfield of six miles (three miles each
way) I recommend that the following compensation be paid
based on the rates in report No. 960 dated 21/5/1982 as
adopted by the General Council of the Civil Service
Conciliation and Arbitration Scheme. I have inflated the
rates at 1.1082 by 40% to account for wage and cost inflation
in the interim.
In addition I recommend that those who have no addition
travel, or up to a half mile extra, receive #200 for their
co-operation in the efficient execution of the exercise.
0 - 1/2 mile = #200 (as per reasons above)
1/2 mile to 2 miles = #391
1 mile to 2 miles = #538
2 miles to 3 miles = #685
3 miles to 4 miles = #830
4 miles to 5 miles = #920
5 miles to 6 miles = #979."
On 7th July, 1989, the College appealed the Rights Commissioner's
recommendation to the Labour Court. The appeal was heard on 4th
August, 1989 in Dublin.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. Significant levels of compensation have been paid by the
College in the past in cases involving disturbance (details
supplied to the Court). On this occasion, the disturbance to
the workers is of a very serious nature. The last award made
was a number of years ago, and there have been substantial
increases in the cost of living over the intervening period.
2. The re-location requires increased time spent travelling
to and from work - in some cases up to two hours daily. The
re-location also involves the workers in on-going costs i.e.
increased petrol costs, bus fares etc. 75% of the staff have
already moved to Belfield, and they have suffered an increase
in travel costs of between #7.50 and #10.00 per week.
3. As well as the disturbance involved in the re-location,
workers have also been engaged in the dismantling and
subsequent re-assembly of laths, toolmaking and C.N.C.
machines. The move is now almost completed, well ahead of
schedule, due to the hard work and extra co-operation of the
technical staff. Some personnel moved into buildings which
had no drinking water or washing facilities.
4. The Rights Commissioner's recommendation was reluctantly
accepted by a majority vote, despite the fact that there was a
considerable amount of dissatisfaction with the lower range
award of #200. The College allowed ten weeks to lapse before
appealing the Rights Commissioner's recommendation, thus
allowing the virtual completion of the move before the appeal.
This is perceived as an abuse of goodwill.
5. Precedents already referred to would indicate that a
figure of #1,200 per worker would not be unreasonable,
disregarding the workers place of abode. In A.D.-4-83 the
College argued that "the major factor determining compensation
payments should be the distance between the original place of
employment and the new." In the circumstances, the Union
submits that the workers should be compensated by a payment of
#2,000, and that at a minimum the Court should uphold the
Rights Commissioner's recommendation.
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 total potential
cost must be a factor in any consideration of the case. The
cost of implementation of Rights Commissioner's recommendation
would be, as estimated by the Union, #25,000 and as estimated
by the College, #18,000 approximately. The difference arises
from different assessments of the extra distances to be
travelled by individuals. It should be noted that in some
cases no additional travel is involved and the change is
arguably advantageous to the staff members. It is clear that,
whatever figure finally emerges, the cost of implementation
would be substantial and that, together with the cost of other
awards, it would be a considerable burden on the College's
finances.
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 Merrion Street 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 a 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. The College contends that in
view of its financial situation and of the Government/H.E.A.
directives no disturbance payments should be made and it asks
the Court so to recommend.
DECISION:
5. The Court having considered the Rights Commissioner's
recommendation and taking into account the submissions made by the
parties, and particularly the special circumstances of this case
where the workers involved organised and almost completed the move
which entailed dismantling and relocation of equipment etc., in
the period between receipt of the recommendation and an appeal
being lodged, the Court decides to uphold the Rights
Commissioner's Recommendation.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Evelyn Owens
_________________________
18th August, 1989 Deputy Chairman.
P.F./J.C.