Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD89808 Case Number: LCR12671 Section / Act: S67 Parties: UNIVERSITY COLLEGE DUBLIN - and - IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION |
Claim, on behalf of six workers, for disturbance compensation.
Recommendation:
5. Having considered the submissions, oral and written, made by
the parties and the special circumstances in which the previous
cases had been the subject of Court decisions, the Court does not
recommend concession of the claim.
Division: Ms Owens Mr Brennan Mr O'Murchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD89808 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR12671
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 67
PARTIES: UNIVERSITY COLLEGE DUBLIN
AND
IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Claim, on behalf of six workers, for disturbance compensation.
BACKGROUND:
2. The College has built a new engineering building at the
Belfield campus which has replaced the engineering faculty based
at Merrion Street. The transfer from Merrion Street to Belfield
began in the summer of 1989 and has now been completed. Virtually
all staff at Merrion Street transferred to Belfield. The six
workers who are the subject of this dispute are categorised as
follows:-
(a) One cleaner who was employed at Merrion Street. As
cleaners are not required at Belfield the worker
accepted an appointment as a laboratory attendant
at Belfield.
(b) Two porters who were employed at Merrion Street,
and were transferred to the new faculty at
Belfield.
(c) Three security men who were employed at Earlsfort
Terrace. They were transferred to Belfield as a
result of re-organisation of staff.
The Union sought compensation on behalf of the workers for the
disturbance involved in relocating to Belfield. The College
rejected the claim. As no agreement was reached at local level
the matter was referred on 18th September, 1989 to the
conciliation service of the Labour Court. A conciliation
conference was held on 26th October, 1989 at which no agreement
was reached and the matter was referred on 6th November, 1989 to a
full hearing of the Labour Court which took place on 24th
November, 1989.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The claim on behalf of the workers concerned follows the
transfer of technicians and other staff to Belfield. In the
case of the technicians the Labour Court rejected an appeal
against a Rights Commissioner's Recommendation (Number AD5789
refers) and recommended payment of disturbance compensation.
The Union is seeking disturbance compensation for the six
workers concerned in this claim on the basis that similar
conditions apply.
2. The College claims that a general productivity agreement
provides for the transfer of porters to any location. There
has been some flexibility on the movement of porters on campus
but the productivity agreement could not be interpreted as
meaning that a porter could be transferred to a different
location in the city. In this case the two porters
transferred on the understanding that any settlement would
apply and have given substantial assistance and co-operation
in the move to Belfield.
3. The move to Belfield has resulted in shift changes and
other changes which make access to their jobs much more
difficult, time consuming, and expensive for the workers
concerned. In view of the changes in commuting involved the
claim for an annual bus commuter ticket for a three year
period or its equivalent is fair and reasonable.
COLLEGE'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The College considers that at least two of the claimants
(1 porter and 1 laboratory attendant) have not suffered
disturbance as a result of their transfer as their homes are
nearer to Belfield than to Merrion Street and that in the
other cases the disturbance suffered is minimal.
2. In connection with the porters' claim it should be noted
that Clause 5 of the Porters' Productivity Agreement provides
that 'Members of the Hall Staff will report for duty to any
location on College grounds or premises as directed.'
In view of that clause the College considers that no
disturbance money should be paid to porters on account of
their transfer from Merrion Street to Belfield.
3. In the case of the security men it is the view of the
College that their conditions of employment (details supplied
to the Court) preclude the payment of disturbance
compensation.
4. The claim is one of approximately ten, submitted by
various unions and individuals, for payments for transfer to
Belfield from Merrion Street, Earlsfort Terrace and Lyons
Estate. Some of the claims have been the subject of Rights
Commissioners' recommendations and Labour Court appeal
hearings, while some others have yet to be considered. The
College therefore asks the Court to bear in mind the potential
cost of all claims when it considers this case.
4. 5. 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 or Earlsfort Terrace to Belfield.
6. 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."
7. 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. 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 circumstances no disturbance
payments should be made.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. Having considered the submissions, oral and written, made by
the parties and the special circumstances in which the previous
cases had been the subject of Court decisions, the Court does not
recommend concession of the claim.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court,
Evelyn Owens
__7th__December,___1989. ___________________
A. S. / M. F. Deputy Chairman