Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD90197 Case Number: LCR12848 Section / Act: S67 Parties: EASON AND SON LTD - and - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION |
Claim by the Union for disturbance compensation for 19/20 workers who are employed in the Company's Wholesale Book Department in Diamond House, Gloucester Place and who are being transferred to the Company's premises in Crumlin.
Recommendation:
5. Having considered the submissions of the parties, the Court
recommends that the Union accepts the Company cash offer (#450)
and that the Company extend its offer of a commuter ticket to
twelve months.
Division: CHAIRMAN Mr Collins Mr O'Murchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD90197 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR12848
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 67
PARTIES: EASON AND SON LTD
and
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Claim by the Union for disturbance compensation for 19/20
workers who are employed in the Company's Wholesale Book
Department in Diamond House, Gloucester Place and who are being
transferred to the Company's premises in Crumlin.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Company is Irish owned and operates in the wholesaling and
retailing of newspapers, magazines, books, stationery and greeting
cards. It is proposing to move its Wholesale Book Department from
Gloucester Place to existing Company premises in Crumlin. The
workers concerned with the move have sought a lump sum payment of
#2000 plus a weekly payment of #20 per worker to compensate for
the extra cost and time spent in travelling to and from the new
location. The Company offered to pay each worker a lump sum of
#350 and to provide a commuter bus ticket for six months. As the
Company proposal was unacceptable to the workers concerned the
issue was referred to the Conciliation Service of the Labour
Courton 2nd April, 1990. No agreement was reached at a
conciliation conference held on 10th April, 1990. However, the
Company was prepared to increase the lump sum payment to #450 and
to provide a commuter bus ticket for six months while the Union
reduced its claim to a lump sum payment of #1,500 plus a
continuing on-going payment of #20 per week. As the Company was
not prepared to consider any form of on-going payments it
requested a full Labour Court hearing. The Union agreed and the
Court investigated the dispute on 9th May, 1990.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The distance to the new location is approximately four
miles. This will involve increased time being spent in
travelling to and from work. In some cases it will involve 1.50
hours more travelling time per day.
2. The relocation will involve workers in on-going costs
due to increased bus fares and petrol costs. It is
unreasonable to expect them to bear this cost on an on-going
basis.
3. 3. The proposed location will cause serious disruption to
the domestic and social lives of the workers involved. The
vast majority of them live on the North side of the city. The
existing location in the city centre allows them to meet
friends, shop and visit the hairdresser during lunch hour.
They will not have this facility at the new location.
4. Significant payments for disturbance and inconvenience
have been made over the years. The concept of the combination
of a lump sum payment plus an on-going payment is not a new
one. Several companies have relocated and in each instance
lump sum payments combined with travelling expenses/free
transport was provided for the workers (details supplied to
the Court).
5. The Labour Court has also used this approach. i.e.
LCR No. 4966 provided for a lump sum payment plus a C.I.E.
commuter ticket. LCRs Nos. 5782 and 5496 provided for lump
sum payments plus free transport.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The existing location has become a difficult and
unsuitable place to work in. Last summer, at the workers
request, the Company agreed to stagger working hours because
of the heat build-up in the building.
2. The existing building consists of two floors. The
ground floor is structured on three levels which makes the
efficient use of stacking equipment impossible and the use of
trollies very difficult. Due to the expansion in titles and
stock carried, there is insufficient space available in the
building. The cramped space has led to significant losses
from damaged and lost stock.
3. Car parking facilities for customers are extremely
limited and for security and safety purposes customers are
very reluctant to park outside or in the near vicinity of the
building. In the recent past several customers and staff have
been physically assaulted in the area and have had their cars
vandalised.
4. If the Company does not move it will become
uncompetitive on both service and range of titles stocked and
future business will be placed in doubt. The continued
penetration of the Irish market by U.K. based bookchains, U.K.
publishers selling direct to bookstores and the expansion of
U.K. wholesalers in the Irish market makes it essential that
the Company has a modern up-to-date warehouse from which to
supply and service customers to satisfaction. The main
competitor in Ireland has recently moved into a larger and
more modern warehouse.
5. The new premises are modern, bright, ventilated and are
presently undergoing renovation and extension which will, when
complete, offer vastly improved working conditions for all
workers concerned. The premises are at most three and one
half miles from Gloucester Place and can be reached by bus
directly from the city centre. They can also be reached by
direct cross city buses which could facilitate some workers.
6. The Company operates the same hourly pay scale
throughout all its operations. This involves some 500 weekly
paid staff. To increase basic pay or to pay an additional
allowance for one group of workers would result in serious
problems elsewhere. The claim for an ongoing payment of #20
per week without any increase in productivity is in breach of
the Programme for National Recovery.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. Having considered the submissions of the parties, the Court
recommends that the Union accepts the Company cash offer (#450)
and that the Company extend its offer of a commuter ticket to
twelve months.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Heffernan
14th May, 1990 ----------------
A McG/U.S. Chairman