Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD89855 Case Number: LCR12739 Section / Act: S20(1) Parties: UNIVERSITY COLLEGE DUBLIN - and - A GROUP OF WORKERS |
Claim by four administrative staff for a relocation payment.
Recommendation:
5. Having considered the submissions from the parties the Court
is not satisfied that there are any special circumstances which
would justify recommending concession of the claim.
Division: Ms Owens Mr McHenry Mr Walsh
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD89855 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR12739
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 20(1)
PARTIES: UNIVERSITY COLLEGE DUBLIN
AND
A GROUP OF WORKERS
SUBJECT:
1. Claim by four administrative staff for a relocation payment.
BACKGROUND:
2. The four claimants work in the College's Engineering faculty
and transferred from Merrion Street to the campus at Belfield when
the new Engineering building was completed. The workers claim
that the mandatory move to Belfield involved them in a
considerable amount of extra work and that travelling to Belfield
is more time-consuming and expensive. They lodged a claim for
compensation of #2,000 tax free each. This was rejected by the
College. The claimants subsequently referred their case to the
Labour Court under Section 20(1) of the Industrial Relations Act,
1969, agreeing to be bound by the Court's recommendation. A Court
hearing was held on the 19th January, 1990.
WORKERS' ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The workers concerned live in Tallaght, Templeogue,
Sandymount and Kenilworth Park. In each case, the move to
Belfield has resulted in it being more difficult and expensive
to get to work (details supplied to the Court). Each now
requires two buses with the consequent increase in travelling
time and expense (on average approximately #6.50 per week).
2. The move to Belfield also involved the claimants in a
considerable amount of extra work. Each one was responsible
for the safe removal and reorganisation of their office at the
new location. In addition, packing, indexing, labelling and
sorting equipment was carried out in a very dirty environment.
Prior to arrival in the new building they were obliged to
search for individual packing cases, remove them to the new
location, unpack all items, assemble cabinets and in some
cases clean and wash residue of dirt from Merrion Street.
3. 3. The new building had few amenities. In some instances,
furniture did not arrive for a month and there was no
portering or postal delivery or collection. Staff were
obliged to walk to the Administration building with post for
internal and external posting.
4. There was no rest room or comparable facility for female
staff in the building. Coffee facilities are shared which was
not the case in Merrion Street where female staff had sole
access to a designated room.
5. Technician staff received a relocation payment and in the
circumstances the claimants are equally entitled to receive
such a payment.
COLLEGE'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The College considers that in some cases the transfer to
Belfield may be advantageous to the staff members, and that in
all cases the disturbance, if any, suffered is minimal. It
should be noted that at least three of the claimants received
initial letters of appointment to posts on the staff of the
College. They were then assigned to particular departments.
The College considers that it may ask them to move with their
departments without incurring a liability to pay them
compensation for disturbance.
2. The College has already had two hearings concerning
disturbance claimed to have resulted from transfers from
Merrion Street to Belfield. The findings of those cases are
set out in Recommendations AD5789 and LCR12671. In LCR12671
the claims made were rejected by the Court which referred in
its recommendation to special circumstances in which previous
cases had been the subject of Court decisions. The College
submits that special circumstances do not apply in this case.
3. This 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. The cost of
awards to date is approximately #35,000 and it is clear that,
whatever figures finally emerge, the cost of implementation of
all awards will be substantial and will be a considerable
burden on the College's finances.
4. 4. 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
to Belfield.
5. In 1983 the Minister of 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.'
RECOMMENDATION:
5. Having considered the submissions from the parties the Court
is not satisfied that there are any special circumstances which
would justify recommending concession of the claim.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court,
Evelyn Owens
___6th___February,___1990. ___________________
D. H. / M. F. Deputy Chairman