Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD90582 Case Number: LCR13128 Section / Act: S67 Parties: OBERSTOWN REMAND AND ASSESSMENT CENTRE - and - LOCAL GOVERNMENT AND PUBLIC SERVICES UNION |
Dispute concerning the honouring of a commitment concerning re-deployment and the payment of a travel allowance to assist staff because of move of location on a temporary basis.
Recommendation:
9. In view of the unique and temporary nature of the
re-deployment in this case and the lack of public transport
serving the Centre the Court recommends concession of the Union's
claim for a travel allowance.
Division: Ms Owens Mr McHenry Ms Ni Mhurchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD90582 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR13128
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 67
PARTIES: OBERSTOWN REMAND AND ASSESSMENT CENTRE
(DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION)
AND
LOCAL GOVERNMENT AND PUBLIC SERVICES UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Dispute concerning the honouring of a commitment concerning
re-deployment and the payment of a travel allowance to assist
staff because of move of location on a temporary basis.
BACKGROUND:
2. Cuan Mhuire Remand and Assessment Centre for girls was
established in 1984 and located at Whitehall, Dublin. It is a
residential observation and assessment centre for young girls in
the 10 to 17 years old age group. They are referred to the Centre
by the Courts or Health Boards or other appropriate agencies. The
duration of each girl's stay is normally about 3 weeks. The
object of the referrals is to enable assessment to take place and
reports prepared.
3. The Cuan Mhuire premises were held by the Department under
lease which expired in 1989. The owners wanted the premises and
were not prepared to renew the lease. The Department endeavoured
to secure a suitable premises within the city but were
unsuccessful. It decided then to re-locate, on a temporary basis,
in a former special school at Oberstown, Lusk, Co. Dublin. These
premises were refurbished and occupied in March, 1990. The new
Centre is situated approximately 16 miles from the city centre and
2.50 miles from the nearest bus stop.
4. The Union and the Department entered into discussions on the
proposed move in January, 1990. Following these discussions an
agreement was reached on certain conditions under which the move
would take place. These conditions included arrangements for
subsidised transport for 3 months (which was extended for a short
period) after the move had taken place plus a commitment from the
Department to re-deploy those staff who wished to be re-deployed
(details supplied to the Court).
5. It was on these two conditions that disagreement subsequently
arose between the parties. The Union maintains that the cost of
transport to and from the Centre is a major expense on the staff
and the Department has failed to honour its commitment regarding
re-deployment. The Department replied that it was Government
policy that claims for such payments arising from re-location of
public servants to new work locations should not be entertained.
On the question of re-deployment the Department stated that every
effort was made to re-deploy staff (some were re-deployed) but
because of the specialist nature of their jobs this was not
possible.
6. The matter was referred to the conciliation service of the
Labour Court on 20th June, 1990. Conciliation conferences were
held on the 6th and the 23rd of July, 1990. At the second
conciliation conference it was agreed that transport would be
provided for a further week, new rosters would be introduced and
that sanction would be sought from the Department of Finance to
increase the Centre's transport budget to assist staff with
transport difficulties in getting in and out of work (the Centre
has a transport budget to provide for outings, etc. for the girls
on remand). As the sanction was not forthcoming the parties
consented to a referral to the Labour Court for investigation and
recommendation. A Court hearing was held on 26th November, 1990.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
7. 1. Expenses of a very significant level are being experienced
by the staff who participated in the move. As the move is a
temporary one staff cannot make long term plans to buy houses
or move home to the area as has happened with staff who work
in Trinity House, which is in the same area.
2. The return distance to Oberstown from Collins Avenue is
thirty miles. This journey does not take into account the
fact that people have even further distances to travel before
they reach that spot. The child care staff with the agreement
of Management re-scheduled the roster to minimise trips to and
from Oberstown, but for care staff the average trip is 120
miles per week. In the case of night supervisory and
part-time teaching staff the average trip is 150 miles.
3. The Union in seeking assistance for expenses incurred
while getting in and out from Oberstown is not claiming the
"civil service mileage allowance". In its initial discussions
with the Department, it was talking in terms of the CIE
monthly bus ticket or the value of same because of the times
when it was not possible to get a bus other means would have
to be used.
DEPARTMENT'S ARGUMENTS:
8. 1. The Court will be aware of long-standing Government policy
in that claims for payments arising from the re-location of
public servants to new work locations should not be
entertained. It should however be noted that the Department
agreed that for an initial period following the transfer to
Oberstown - during which time the staff concerned were
afforded an opportunity to seek alternative employment - a
temporary transport service was provided at the expense of the
Department. This service (involving the provision of taxis)
operated for a period of 18 weeks, at a cost to the Department
of #18,000. The Department considers that its treatment of
the Oberstown staff in this respect has been generous, and
having regard to Government policy, it is opposed to any
further payments being made to the staff in respect of
disturbance, whether by means of lump sum payments, travel
allowances or otherwise. Any such payments, if conceded,
would inevitably give rise to repercussive claims in respect
of staff in other special schools and elsewhere in the Public
Service.
2. In regard to re-deployment a total of eight people
ultimately expressed a wish for alternative employment. It
was possible to find alternative employment for one member of
staff, two subsequently opted for voluntary redundancy. It
was not possible to facilitate the other members of staff
despite the Department's best efforts. These staff enjoy
relatively high salaries in comparison to similar workers in
other areas of the Public Service because of the nature of
their work, therefore, it would prove very difficult to secure
alternative employment for these workers.
RECOMMENDATION:
9. In view of the unique and temporary nature of the
re-deployment in this case and the lack of public transport
serving the Centre the Court recommends concession of the Union's
claim for a travel allowance.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court,
Evelyn Owens
___________________
19th December, 1990.
M.D. / M. F. Deputy Chairman