Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD88800 Case Number: LCR12225 Section / Act: S67 Parties: THERMO KING EUROPE - and - AMALGAMATED ENGINEERING UNION |
Claim on behalf of 22 general operatives for compensation as a result of a temporary transfer from one location to another.
Recommendation:
6. The Court does not recommend concession of the Union's claim.
Division: Mr O'Connell Mr Collins Mr Devine
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD88800 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR12225
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 67
PARTIES: THERMO KING EUROPE
(REPRESENTED BY THE FEDERATED UNION OF EMPLOYERS)
AND
AMALGAMATED ENGINEERING UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Claim on behalf of 22 general operatives for compensation as a
result of a temporary transfer from one location to another.
BACKGROUND:
2. In August, 1987 the Company transferred an assembly department
from its main plant in Mervue to a smaller site in Ballybane, a
distance of approximately a quarter of a mile. The department was
relocated to Mervue in May, 1988.
3. The Union lodged a claim for compensation in respect of the
disturbance. The Company rejected the claim and the matter was
referred to the conciliation service of the Labour Court on 6th
June, 1988. A conciliation conference was held on 31st August,
1988. As no agreement was possible the parties subsequently
requested a referral to the Labour Court for investigation and
recommendation. A Court hearing was held in Galway on 14th
December, 1988.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. Lengthy discussions have taken place over a period of time
to try to secure compensation for the loss of facilities
endured at that time i.e. no canteen facilities other than the
opportunity to boil a kettle to make a cup of tea. This also
necessitated spending approximately 20 minutes more each day
travelling and also a further 20 minutes each day travelling
to and from the other factory if they required a lunch.
2. There is a lot of precedence for claims of this nature and
the Court is urged to make a recommendation in favour of the
employees concerned.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
5. 1. This is not the first time that people have been
transferred from Mervue to Ballybane. In Autumn of 1986 the
Company introduced some new machinery to Ballybane and 8 to 10
people worked there for up to 9 months before being
re-integrated into the main plant in May, 1987. No
difficulties or claims arose out of the transfer in question.
2. At the time of the transfer none of the employees involved
raised any objection and indeed it would be the Company's view
that they were happy with the change and did not want to go
back. This view is supported by a number of points including
the fact that the Union made representations to the Company
supporting an individual complaint about re-transferring to
the main plant. Also the employees involved in the move had
insisted that the re-transfer to Mervue should operate on the
basis of seniority - that those with less service were
re-integrated first. All of this suggested that the people
involved preferred the working environment in the smaller
facility.
3. While the Company accepts that there was no canteen
facility in Ballybane, the plant had a kitchen equipped with a
microwave and other basic facilities and again no complaints
were raised about this matter.
RECOMMENDATION:
6. The Court does not recommend concession of the Union's claim.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court,
John O'Connell
___________________
19th January, 1989
M.D./J.C. Deputy Chairman.