Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD92170 Case Number: AD92157 Section / Act: S13(9) Parties: UNIVERSITY COLLEGE DUBLIN - and - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION |
Appeals against a Rights Commissioner's recommendation (CW14/92) regarding the transfer of a worker.
Recommendation:
5. The Court, having considered the submissions by the parties
does not accept that there are any special circumstances that
would warrant the payment of disturbance compensation in this
instance. The Court therefore upholds the appeal by the College
against the Rights' Commissioner's recommendation.
The Court so decides.
Division: Mr Heffernan Mr Brennan Mr Walsh
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD92170 APPEAL DECISION NO. AD15792
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
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Appeals against a Rights Commissioner's recommendation
(CW14/92) regarding the transfer of a worker.
BACKGROUND:
2. 1. In August, 1988, the College closed the Genetics
department at Earlsfort Terrace. The worker, who was employed
as a laboratory attendant was transferred to the College's
campus at Belfield.
2. In 1991, the Union submitted a claim for compensation
for the transfer. The basis of the claim was that the worker
agreed to the transfer on the understanding that it would be
possible to revert to the diagnostic laboratories at
Earlfsfort Terrace as soon as a vacancy arose. The worker was
not informed of a vacancy which arose in 1989 and at the time
of the claim, had no expectation of being transferred back to
Earlsfort Terrace despite a request to the College.
3. The claim could not be resolved by local negotiation and
was the subject of a Rights' Commissioner's investigation on
2nd March, 1992. The Rights' Commissioner's recommendation as
set out below was issued to the parties on 6th March, 1992.
"I recommend that the College offers and the Union
accepts the sum of #300 in settlement of this dispute.
4. The recommendation was appealed to the Labour Court by
the College, by letter dated 18th March, 1992 and by the
Union, by letter dated 27th March, 1992. The appeals are
under Section 13(9) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969 and
a Labour Court investigation took place on 16th April, 1992.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The worker's clear understanding on being transfered was
that it would not be permanent. The transfer involves
considerable extra expense for the worker (details supplied).
This claim differs from other disturbance related claims
because the worker was given a commitment that he would be
transferred back to Earlsfort Terrace.
2. The College has refused the worker's recent request for
a transfer back to Earlsfort Terrace and the worker now has no
real expectation of such a transfer. In the special
circumstances of this case compensation is justified. The
compensation recommended by the Rights' Commissioner is
significantly lower than that which the College awarded to
others in similar circumstances in 1989 or the treatment
accorded to other workers who were recently transferred to
Belfield (details supplied).
COLLEGE'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Rights' Commissioner appears to have based his
recommendation on the basis of the worker's alleged
expectation that he would transfer from Belfield to Earlsfort
Terrace. The official record (details supplied) of transfer
makes no such reference. In any case, the transfer of staff
at that time and to the present day is from Earlsfort Terrace
to Belfield.
2. The transfer was insignificant in respect of distance
and the College would submit that the idea of paying
compensation for disturbance is inappropriate, particularly in
the Public Sector. This position has, save in exceptional
circumstances, been upheld by the Labour Court (details
supplied). The distance in this case of 2.15 miles is not
exceptional.
DECISION:
5. The Court, having considered the submissions by the parties
does not accept that there are any special circumstances that
would warrant the payment of disturbance compensation in this
instance. The Court therefore upholds the appeal by the College
against the Rights' Commissioner's recommendation.
The Court so decides.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Heffernan
5th May, 1992 ----------------
J.F./U.S. Chairman