Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD90686 Case Number: LCR13209 Section / Act: S67 Parties: UNIVERSITY COLLEGE DUBLIN - and - MANUFACTURING SCIENCE AND FINANCE |
Claim on behalf of a designer draughtsman for a disturbance payment.
Recommendation:
5. The Court hearing considered the submissions of the parties
oral and written does not find grounds to extend the payments made
to technicians to the complainant. The Court accordingly rejects
the claim.
Division: MrMcGrath Mr Brennan Mr Rorke
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD90686 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR13209
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 67
PARTIES: UNIVERSITY COLLEGE DUBLIN
AND
MANUFACTURING SCIENCE AND FINANCE
SUBJECT:
1. Claim on behalf of a designer draughtsman for a disturbance
payment.
BACKGROUND:
2. 1. The worker concerned was located at the College's
engineering faculty at Merrion Street and was transferred to
the new engineering faculty on the Belfield Campus.
Virtually all staff from Merrion Street have transferred to
Belfield in stages since early 1989.
The Union are claiming that the worker concerned should have
been included in the previous claim for 31 technicians
(AD5789 refers). It claims his omission at that time was an
error on the Union's part as the same circumstances apply.
The College sees no reason to extend the terms of the
decision to the worker concerned and have also rejected the
claim on the basis of a statement by the Minister for the
Public Service in 1983 and a circular from the Higher
Education Authority in 1987 regarding disturbance payments.
2. No agreement was reached and the matter was referred to
the conciliation services on the 19th September, 1990. A
conciliation conference was held on 2 November 1990 at which
no agreement was reached. Both sides agreed to refer the
claim to the Labour Court and an investigation took place on
14 December, 1990.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The worker in this case is a draughting technician and
is an integral part of the engineering faculty. The claim
for compensation is based on the Labour Court Decision
(AD5789) regarding the transfer of 31 technicians. The
inadvertent omission of the technician concerned was largely
due to the fact that he is a draughting technician and was
housed away from the main area where the other technicians
concerned worked.
2. Like the other technicians involved with the move he
co-operated fully with the dismantling and relocation of
equipment. The worker has now been relocated to Belfield and
as a result has increased his time spent travelling to and
from work with the consequent increase in costs.
COLLEGE'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The College sees no reason for the terms of the Labour
Court Appeal Decision (AD5789) regarding the relocation of
the 31 technicians to be extended to this worker who is a
designer draughtsman. Since this decision the College has
been involved in three further hearings on disturbance
compensation claims by different categories of staff which
have been rejected by the Court. (Details supplied to the
Court).
2. This claim is one of ten which either have been heard or
will be heard by either the Labour Court or Rights
Commissioner Service. The cost of awards to date is #35,000
and it is clear that whatever figure will finally emerge it
will be a considerable burden on the Colleges finances. The
College, as a result of cut-backs in grant income over the
last two years has been obliged to make economies in all
areas. The payment of awards such as these only exacerbate
the situation. The College asks the Court to bear in mind
the potential cost to the College of concession of these
claims.
3. The College is further obliged to follow policy laid
down by the Government and the Higher Education Authority.
As a consequence of directions on the matter (details
supplied to the Court) the College have resisted all claims
for the payment of disturbance money.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. The Court hearing considered the submissions of the parties
oral and written does not find grounds to extend the payments made
to technicians to the complainant. The Court accordingly rejects
the claim.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
4th March, 1991 Tom McGrath
J.F. / M.O'C. _______________
Deputy Chairman