Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD92401 Case Number: AD92198 Section / Act: S13(9) Parties: AER LINGUS - and - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION |
An appeal by both parties against Rights Commissioner's recommendation No. C.W. 149/92 concerning disturbance compensation.
Recommendation:
5. The Court has considered the appeals of both parties and has
fully taken into account the oral and written submissions and the
reasoning of the Rights Commissioner.
It is the view of the Court that there are no acceptable grounds
for the payment of compensation to staff re-located in this case.
Accordingly the Court rejects the appeal of the Union and upholds
the appeal of the Company.
The Court so decides.
Division: MrMcGrath Mr Keogh Mr Walsh
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD92401 APPEAL DECISION NO. AD19892
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 13(9), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969
PARTIES: AER LINGUS
and
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
SUBJECT:
1. An appeal by both parties against Rights Commissioner's
recommendation No. C.W. 149/92 concerning disturbance
compensation.
BACKGROUND:
2. In May, 1989 due to the lack of suitable office accommodation,
the Company's Cargo Head Office was moved to Swords. In March,
1992, it was decided that Cargo Revenue Accounting, which had been
part of the Airline Finance Accounting, should be transferred to
the Cargo Head Office and, therefore, to Swords. It is the long
term objective of the Company that all sections of Cargo should
eventually be relocated at Dublin Airport.
The Union contends that due to the relocation of the Cargo Revenue
Accounting Section its members have incurred an increase in travel
costs and in travel time. It claims that the workers should be
compensated for the extra expense and inconvenience caused by the
relocation. The Company rejects the claim and states that the
workers concerned were given an opportunity to transfer to other
sections based at the Airport but none availed of the opportunity.
The issue was referred to a Rights Commissioner for investigation
and recommendation. The Rights Commissioner's investigation took
place on 6th May, 1992 and the following recommendation issued 8th
June, 1992:
"I recommend that the Company offers and the workers accept
the sum of #500 each in settlement of this dispute".
The Rights Commissioner's recommendation was appealed to the
Labour Court in accordance with Section 36(2) Industrial Relations
Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on 27th August,
1992.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. As a result of the relocation workers who do not have cars
have incurred the additional cost of travelling by public
transport. This cost can vary but involves a minimum of #10
per week - the cost of a weekly commuter ticket. Though these
same workers were without cars while working in Dublin Airport
they were able, because of the large number of people working
there, to avail of a lift to work.
2. The working day for the workers concerned has been
increased to the extent of upwards of an hour. This increase
results from the additional time required to travel to and
from work, especially for those without cars. The workers
claim that they are entitled to be compensated for this extra
time. The Union acknowledges that the Company has altered the
flexi-time arrangements to accommodate the additional
travelling time involved.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The workers concerned did not avail of the opportunity to
transfer to any other section within the Airport. Daily
transport is provided to and from the Airport which can be
availed of by the workers for personal or official business.
The workers receive a daily lunch allowance of #3 to
compensate for the lack of canteen facilities in the Swords
premises.
2. The workers' contract of employment provides for the right
of the Company to transfer them to any location if required.
No compensation was paid to the workers who transferred to
Swords in 1989 nor has compensation ever been paid in
situations involving minor relocation within Dublin.
Concession of the Union's claim could result in further claims
for compensation against the Company. The Company is not in a
financial position to make such payments and must make every
effort to ensure Company costs are not increased.
3. In 1984 a directive was issued by the then Minister for
the Public Service indicating that compensation should not be
paid to staff in the case of re-location. The Company
contends that due to the current financial climate this
directive is more relevant now than ever.
DECISION:
5. The Court has considered the appeals of both parties and has
fully taken into account the oral and written submissions and the
reasoning of the Rights Commissioner.
It is the view of the Court that there are no acceptable grounds
for the payment of compensation to staff re-located in this case.
Accordingly the Court rejects the appeal of the Union and upholds
the appeal of the Company.
The Court so decides.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Tom McGrath
____________________
15th September, 1992. Deputy Chairman.
A. NiS./J.C.