Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD91258 Case Number: AD9155 Section / Act: S13(9) Parties: UNIVERSITY COLLEGE DUBLIN - and - IRISH FEDERATION OF UNIVERSITY TEACHERS |
An appeal by the University against Rights Commissioners Recommendation S.T. 32/91 regarding disturbance payments.
Recommendation:
5. The Court having considered all of the issues raised by the
parties in their oral and written submissions takes the view that
given all the circumstances of the case there are no grounds for
payment of compensation to the claimants.
Accordingly the Court upholds the College appeal against the
Rights Commissioner's Recommendation.
The Court so decides.
Division: MrMcGrath Mr Keogh Mr Walsh
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD91258 APPEAL DECISION NO. AD5591
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 13(9), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969
PARTIES: UNIVERSITY COLLEGE DUBLIN
(REPRESENTED BY THE FEDERATION OF IRISH EMPLOYERS)
and
IRISH FEDERATION OF UNIVERSITY TEACHERS
SUBJECT:
1. An appeal by the University against Rights Commissioners
Recommendation S.T. 32/91 regarding disturbance payments.
BACKGROUND:
2. 1. The dispute concerns 10 College lecturers who have
transferred from Merrion Street to a new engineering building
on the Belfield Campus of the College. The distance
transferred is 2.7 miles.
2. The Union in June, 1989, wrote to the College seeking
disturbance payments for the transfer. The claim was on the
basis of the extra mileage involved and the amount of extra
duties carried out by the workers in organising and
supervising the details of the move. The College rejected the
claim and subsequently refused to attend a Rights
Commissioner's hearing preferring to go to the conciliation
service of the Labour Court. At a conciliation conference on
8th December, 1989 the parties failed to reach agreement.
L.C.R. 13089 recommended that the College agree to have the
issue referred to a Rights Commissioner.
3. The Recommendation (S.T. 32/91) as set out below was
issued on 9th April, 1991:-
"In all the circumstances including the very similar ones
existing in the cases S.T. 46/89 and S.T. 49/89 I
recommend that the College pays #3,000 into the Faculty's
Travel and Conference Fund to be used strictly in
accordance with its rules. The amount of the payment is
strictly in accord with the level recommended in L.C.
Rec. 12750 (i.e. #300 X 10).
The payment is to be made and accepted without precedent,
and is in full and final settlement of all claims arising
from the move to Belfield."
4. By letter dated 10th May, 1991, the College appealed the
Recommendation to the Labour Court under Section 13(9) of the
Industrial Relations Act, 1969. A Labour Court investigation
took place on 28th June, 1991.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. In addition to the extra mileage incurred by the workers,
there are special circumstances involved. There was
considerable physical involvement in the move by academics
right down to taking sensitive and valuable equipment in their
own cars to the main University campus. There was also work
done outside of normal working hours and at weekends (details
supplied). Similar special circumstances were recognised by
the Court in AD5789 in respect of a claim by 31 technicians
whom the academics supervised.
2. The College argue that they are not allowed by Government
directive to pay disturbance claims. This position is not
recognised by the Union and has been breached in a number of
instances. The Rights Commissioner also recognised that the
College had a responsibility to run its own business. The
payments awarded do not go to the academics themselves but to
a special fund to assist academic development at the College
and is therefore of benefit to both sides.
COLLEGE'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. This case has been subject to considerable correspondence
over the past 2 years (details supplied). The College
suggests that the whole idea of paying compensation for
disturbance is inappropriate, particularly in the Public
Sector. This position has save in exceptional circumstances
been upheld by the Court (details supplied). The current
claim of a move of 2.7 miles could hardly be considered
exceptional.
2. The Rights Commissioner in his recommendation has moved
away considerably from his original formula and has based his
award on L.C.R. 12750 which involved a move of 20 miles. All
10 workers have enjoyed the benefits of the new facilities at
Belfield and the associated advantages. There are
considerable knock on implications of any award in this case.
DECISION:
5. The Court having considered all of the issues raised by the
parties in their oral and written submissions takes the view that
given all the circumstances of the case there are no grounds for
payment of compensation to the claimants.
Accordingly the Court upholds the College appeal against the
Rights Commissioner's Recommendation.
The Court so decides.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Tom McGrath
_________________________
16th July, 1991. Deputy Chairman
J.F./J.C.