Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD89205 Case Number: LCR12437 Section / Act: S67 Parties: IRISH RAIL - and - ICTU SHOPWORKERS TRADE UNION GROUP |
Claim, on behalf of approximately twenty workers for transfer payments.
Recommendation:
5. Having considered the submissions made by the parties the
Court does not consider that any special circumstances exist in
this case which would merit the award of compensation.
Accordingly the Court does not recommend concession of the claim.
Division: Mr Shiel Ms Ni Mhurchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD89205 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR12437
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 67
PARTIES: IRISH RAIL
and
ICTU SHOPWORKERS TRADE UNION GROUP
SUBJECT:
1. Claim, on behalf of approximately twenty workers for transfer
payments.
BACKGROUND:
2. The workers concerned are building trade staff. They are
currently based at Broadstone and at Heuston Station. The Company
has proposed relocating their base to Connolly Station. The Union
sought disturbance compensation to the workers for this move. The
Company was not prepared to pay such compensation. The move has
been deferred for some months pending resolution of the issue.
The matter was referred to the conciliation service of the Labour
Court on 3rd February, 1989. A conciliation conference held on
28th February failed to resolve the issue and it was referred, on
6th March, 1989, to a full hearing of the Labour Court. The
hearing took place on 10th April, 1989.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Company should adhere to the existing agreement
which has had application throughout the CIE Companies since
1975 and which was last updated in 1986. This agreement (copy
supplied to the Court) makes provision for disturbance
payments.
2. The Union agrees that the Company has the right to
transfer staff. However, an official dispute will take place
if there is any attempt to move staff without payment of
compensation as per the agreement. The cost of honouring the
agreement would be about #2000 in this case.
3. The Company has indicated that a Government Department
or Departments will not allow such payments. The Union
queries the right of Government Departments to set aside
existing agreements or sections of agreements.
4. The current agreement as it relates to disturbance
payments has been implemented in numerous instances within the
CIE Companies (details supplied to the Court). The Union
rejects the Company's contention that disturbance payments
have not been made since January 1984 (details supplied of
instances where payment was made).
5. The Labour Court has recommended payments of disturbance
compensation in numerous cases (details supplied).
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. Due to its serious financial position and the urgent
need to curtail expenditure, the Company has been involved in
an ongoing review of manning levels since its formation as a
separate Company in 1987. Staff numbers in all grades have
been reduced through natural wastage, redeployment and
voluntary severance. This has included building trade staff
whose workload has been declining since the restructuring of
the Company. Arising out of this, it was decided to have a
single headquarters for the Broadstone, Heuston and Connolly
building trade staff at Connolly Station. The Trade Unions
have previously recognised the Company's position in the light
of the need to curtail expenditure.
2. Taking account of the financial situation, the Company
is not in a position to make disturbance payments for local
transfers. The Labour Court has rejected such claims on
numerous occasions (details supplied).
3. There is a government embargo since 1st January, 1984,
on the payment of disturbance compensation to staff in Public
Sector employments, including the commercial semi-State
Companies. This embargo, implemented by Ministerial
directive, arose from the Government's growing concern with
regard to such payments for transfers, particularly within
city limits. This has effectively put an end to disturbance
payments in the public sector.
4. The transfer to Connolly is to a central location which
is more accessible by public transport. The staff involved
are eligible to purchase commuter tickets at one-third of
their cost to the public. This facility is being availed of
by a majority of the claimants. Duty Passes are supplied for
travelling to work sites. The accommodation at Connolly is
superior to that at Broadstone and Heuston. The Company sees
no valid grounds for payment of disturbance compensation in
these circumstances.
5. The trade unions have stated that a disturbance payment
was made in respect of staff transferred to Inchicore as a
result of the closure of Broadstone Workshops. This case
involved the transfer of a significant number of staff. The
Minister for Communications in 1986 accepted that special
circumstances existed in that case which had been raised with
the Department in 1984. Specific approval was given in these
circumstances. The Company has declined to make disturbance
payments in other cases.
6. Concession of the claim would have serious repercussive
effects.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. Having considered the submissions made by the parties the
Court does not consider that any special circumstances exist in
this case which would merit the award of compensation.
Accordingly the Court does not recommend concession of the claim.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Heffernan
_______________________
pp Nicholas Fitzgerald
23rd June, 1989. Deputy Chairman
A.K./U.S.