Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD90189 Case Number: LCR12913 Section / Act: S67 Parties: INDUSTRIAL PACKAGING - and - AMALGAMATED TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS UNION |
Claim by the Union for disturbance payments.
Recommendation:
5. The Court noting the Company's offer of compensation for
relocation recommends that this offer be increased to a sum of
#500 per claimant in full settlement of both claims.
Division: Ms Owens Mr Brennan Mr Devine
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD90189 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR12913
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 67
PARTIES: INDUSTRIAL PACKAGING
(REPRESENTED BY THE FEDERATION OF IRISH EMPLOYERS)
AND
AMALGAMATED TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Claim by the Union for disturbance payments.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Company is involved in the manufacturing of packaging for
a variety of industrial and commercial uses. The Company is
currently situated in Blackrock, however these premises are no
longer suitable and the Company has decided to move to new
premises in Bray. It is expected that this move will take place
in August, 1990. In November, 1989 the Union served a claim on
the Company for compensation for the move to Bray. The Company
made an offer of #400 each for the four workers who would now have
to travel greatest distances to the new location and #200 each for
all the other workers affected. This was unacceptable to the
Union which is seeking a payment of #10 per week to cover the
extra expenses involved and a lump sum payment of #400
compensation for each worker in respect of moving and co-operation
for the future. On 23rd January, 1990 the matter was referred to
the conciliation service of the Labour Court. A conciliation
conference was held on 28th February, 1990 at which no agreement
was reached and on 21st March, 1990 the matter was referred to the
Labour Court for investigation and recommendation. The Court
investigated the dispute on 1st June, 1990.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The move to Bray will mean that there will be more space
for the Company to expand its product range and there will be
ample room for transport vehicles. The Company will be in a
more advantageous position to meet the challenges of 1992.
However, the reality for the workers is that without
exception the move to Bray will impose extra financial costs
and will also result in time being lost each morning and
evening due to the longer distance involved (details supplied
to the Court). The payment of disturbance compensation is a
feature of both the private and public sector (details
supplied to the Court).
3. 2. The workers are lowly paid and the wages paid depend on
the age of the worker concerned and the job involved.
Therefore, the workers cannot afford the additional costs
which would be involved in the daily journey to Bray and home
again. The Company should pay #10 per week to cover the extra
expenses involved and #400 to each worker for co-operation for
the future.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The purpose in moving the Company from its present
location to Bray is to allow for the further development of
the business, which is to the advantage of both the Company
and its workers. Working conditions in the new premises will
be substantially improved at considerable cost to the Company
and it is therefore unreasonable for the workers to claim that
they should be compensated for such a move. The proposal made
by the Company at local level discussions in December, 1989 of
#400 each for the four workers who would have to travel
greatest distances and #200 for the others, was a gesture of
goodwill on its part, with the recognition that a small number
of workers would have to travel a greater distance to work
when the move takes place. The Company's proposal should be
accepted by the workers.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. The Court noting the Company's offer of compensation for
relocation recommends that this offer be increased to a sum of
#500 per claimant in full settlement of both claims.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court,
Evelyn Owens
___13th___June,____1990. ___________________
U. M. / M. F. Deputy Chairman