Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD90201 Case Number: LCR12890 Section / Act: S67 Parties: OFFICE OF PUBLIC WORKS - and - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION;UNION OF CONSTRUCTION, ALLIED TRADES AND TECHNICIANS |
Claim on behalf of 21 workers for compensation for disturbance due to re-location
Recommendation:
5. The Court having considered the oral and written submissions
of the parties does not recommend concession of the Unions' claim.
The Court, noting the views expressed by the Unions that some
individuals who walk to work may have difficulties in respect of
the transfer to the new location, recommends that the Office of
Public Works and the Unions discuss such instances on an
individual basis in an endeavour to minimise any problems that may
arise as a consequence of the move.
Division: MrMcGrath Mr Brennan Mr Walsh
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD90201 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR12890
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 67
PARTIES: OFFICE OF PUBLIC WORKS
and
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
UNION OF CONSTRUCTION, ALLIED TRADES AND TECHNICIANS
SUBJECT:
1. Claim on behalf of 21 workers for compensation for disturbance
due to re-location
BACKGROUND:
2. The claim concerns approximately 21 workers who are employed
as general operatives, drivers tradesmen's helpers and
storepersons at the Office of Public Works National Monuments
Depot which was located in the centre of Kilkenny City. A
decision has been made by O.P.W. to move the present depot to a
location in Hebron Industrial Estate which is approximately two
miles on the outskirts of the town. The Unions claim that in the
case of the majority of the workers concerned, the move will be
inconvenient and cost increasing. In January, 1990 the unions
submitted a claim for a disturbance payment of #1,000 in respect
of each worker concerned. Management rejected the claim on the
grounds that it is precluded under a Minister for the Public
Service Directive of 1983 from paying disturbance money. O.P.W.
also dispute whether the workers concerned have suffered any
inconvenience. It states that conditions in the new premises are
far superior to those at the old location. Local level
discussions failed to resolve the dispute which was referred to
the conciliation service of the Labour Court on the 29th January,
1990. A conciliation conference was held on the 20th March, 1990
but no agreement was reached. The dispute was referred to the
Labour Court on the 26th April, 1990. A Court hearing was held in
Kilkenny on the 8th May, 1990.
UNIONS' ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The workers concerned live at various locations in or
around the city. Inevitably there are a small number for whom
the new location will be nearer and more convenient. For the
majority, however, there is a significant amount of extra
travelling involved and extra time involved in getting to and
from work. Less than half the workers concerned own their own
cars or are in a position to get a lift. Many, previously
walked to work. This will be impossible at the new location.
Those workers with cars will have to negotiate an increased
number of traffic filled streets and intersections to get to
the new depot.
2. The Unions have not been made aware of the cost of the new
depot but contend that whatever the financial constraints on
O.P.W. the cost of meeting this claim in full would be an
insignificant percentage of the total cost of the new depot.
In any event O.P.W. will be vacating a very valuable property
in the city centre. Part of the proceeds of this sale could
be used to meet this claim.
3. In relation to the Ministerial Directive the Unions would
like to point out that it has already been breached in the
Public Service. The most significant of these cases was the
decision of the Court to uphold a recommendation of a Rights
Commissioner concerning University College Dublin and the
trade union M.S.F. (A.D. 5789 refers). What is very
significant about this case is that the Rights Commissioner
not only disregarded the Ministerial Directive, but took the
table of compensation awards operated since 1982 and updated
it by 40% to match wage increases in the interim.
O.P.W.'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Minister for the Public Service by directive in 1983
precluded all payments of disturbance money in the Public
Service from 1st January, 1984 and this directive still has
effect. In his direction ending the payment of disturbance
money in the Public Sector, the then Minister instanced the
enormous cost of the Public Sector generally and the fact that
all additional claims, of whatever nature, added an additional
burden to the Exchequer and thereby directly to the taxpayer.
It will be appreciated that any improvement in finances in the
Public Sector since that date has only been achieved at the
cost of a large-scale voluntary redundancy scheme and a total
embargo on the filling of all vacancies. Any improvement
resulting however, has only enabled the Public Service to
continue at a reduced level: it has certainly not resulted in
an improvement in the level of services provided nor in any
increase in the financial resources available. The continuing
reality is that each year since 1984 has seen sustained
reductions in the amounts available in real terms to run the
Public Service, with Government targets set on the basis of
further real reductions in the years ahead. As a provider of
services to other Government Departments the Office of Public
Works has suffered more than most other Departments in this
respect.
2. The actual distance from the old site to the new site is
just over 1 3/4 miles. Half of the workforce to be
transferred there actually live outside the Kilkenny
Corporation area and travel into Kilkenny every day,
to arrive there before 8.00 a.m. Even for those who live on
the opposite side of the city (and who must travel through it
to reach the new site), there will be no appreciable
disturbance as it cannot be claimed that Kilkenny has traffic
hold-ups before 8.00 a.m. in the morning. For those who come
in to the city from the side where the Depot is (4) it will of
course actually be nearer to home. In the case of those who
live in the city area the disturbance will be small taking
into account that the distance from the city centre to the new
depot is only 1 3/4 miles. The Court has in recent years
rejected claims for disturbance payments for workers in Public
Sector employment viz;
LCR11694 - Eolas - Finglas to Ballymun - 2 miles
LCR11410 - Jervis Street, Richmond Hospitals to Beaumont
- 5 miles
LCR12437 - Irish Rail - Broadstone and Heuston to Amiens
Street - 1 3/4 miles.
Most importantly the Court's attention is drawn to
Recommendation No.: 11786 of April, 1988 which involved the
opening by the Office of Public Works of a new National
Monuments depot at Mallow and the transfer of twelve workers
from Kanturk to Mallow, a distance of 13 miles. In that
instance the Union claimed compensation of #1,500 per person.
The claim was not upheld by the Court.
3. The Office of Public Works takes the view that,
exceptional circumstances apart, the concept of disturbance
payment is an outdated one particularly when the transfer
concerned arises from a claim by the Unions for improved
conditions which cannot be provided at the existing work
location. However, regardless of its own views in the matter,
the Office is clearly bound by a Government decision to
discontinue payment of disturbance money in respect of all
transfers after 1st January, 1984. The cost of conceding this
claim would be approximately #25,000, however, the effect of
conceding it would be to open the door to a proliferation of
similar claims throughout the Public Service, most of which
would (most likely) show greater justification for a payment
than these workers. Having regard to the continuing financial
constraints under which the Office of Public Works must
operate and also to the other circumstances outlined above,
the Court is asked to reject the Unions' claim.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. The Court having considered the oral and written submissions
of the parties does not recommend concession of the Unions' claim.
The Court, noting the views expressed by the Unions that some
individuals who walk to work may have difficulties in respect of
the transfer to the new location, recommends that the Office of
Public Works and the Unions discuss such instances on an
individual basis in an endeavour to minimise any problems that may
arise as a consequence of the move.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Tom McGrath
__________________________
1st June, 1990. Deputy Chairman
T.O'D./J.C.