Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD93566 Case Number: AD93108 Section / Act: S13(9) Parties: THREE RIVERS OIL COMPANY LIMITED - and - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION |
Appeal against Rights Commissioner's Recommendation No. BC161/93.
Recommendation:
Having considered the submissions from the parties. The Court is
satisfied that the Rights Commissioner's Recommendation is
reasonable in the circumstances and should be upheld.
The Court accordingly rejects the appeal and so decides.
Division: Ms Owens Mr Brennan Mr Walsh
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD93566 APPEAL DECISION NO.AD10893
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 13(9), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969
PARTIES:
THREE RIVERS OIL COMPANY LIMITED
AND
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Appeal against Rights Commissioner's Recommendation No.
BC161/93.
BACKGROUND:
2. 1. The Company is an authorised distributor for ESSO in the
South East. It has depots in Kilkenny, Clonmel, Arklow,
Portlaoise, Birr, New Ross, Waterford and Thurles. The
investigation involves a worker who was supervisor of the
Birr Depot from 1984 when the Company took on the
distribution responsibility from ESSO. Prior to that the
worker had been the Birr supervisor for ESSO for 27 years.
2. The Company in November 1991, decided to make redundant
the supervisor's position in Birr as a result of the poor
volume throughput. The worker was offered the following
options on 29th November, 1991:
(a) Alternative employment in the Clonmel Depot on the
same pay and conditions
or
(b) An offer of voluntary severance based on a
compensation package, the terms of which were to be
negotiated.
3. The options were rejected by the Union and various
meetings took place over the ensuing months (details
supplied). The worker was eventually transferred to
Portlaoise Depot (36 miles) on 6th August, 1992, following
the voluntary redundancy of a worker at the Depot (details
supplied).
4. On 23rd September, 1992, the Union made a claim on the
Company for compensation for the worker's transfer to
Portlaoise. The Company rejected the claim and it was
referred to the Rights Commissioners Service. A Rights
Commissioner's investigation took place on 23rd August, 1993
and the following Recommendation was issued on 31st August,
1993:
"In the light of the above I believe it is appropriate
that the worker should receive some compensation for the
requirement to move from his place of employment in Birr
to Portlaoise some 36 miles away. For clear
organisational reasons I do not propose that this
compensation be expressed in the form of a continuing
monthly or annual amount.
My Recommendation is that the worker should receive the
sum of #3,500 and that this be accepted by him in full
and final settlement of all claims on the Company in
relation to this matter."
The worker was named in the Recommendation.
5. The Rights Commissioner's Recommendation was appealed by
the Company to the Labour Court under Section 13(9) of the
Industrial Relations Act 1969. The Court heard the appeal in
Kilkenny on 2nd December, 1993.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. On 18th December, 1991, the worker rejected the options
put forward by the Company and indicated that his preferred
choice would be the position of supervisor in the Portlaoise
Depot. The Company took considerable trouble to accommodate
the worker (details supplied). The Union then sought mileage
rates to be paid to the worker for his trip to work. The
Company has never and would never pay travel expenses to a
member of staff to get to his place of work. The Company did
offer the reimbursement of reasonable costs incurred in a
permanent re-location.
2. The Rights Commissioner's Recommendation is being appealed as
the Company went to great lengths over an extended period of
time to find an alternative to redundancy. The
Recommendation of the Rights Commissioner effectively seeks
to impose a huge penalty on the Company for its efforts. It
also establishes a most undesirable precedent which does
nothing to encourage other employers, who are seeking to
reduce their overhead costs, to find solutions short of
redundancy.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The worker moved to the Portlaoise Depot at the
direction of the Company and not by choice. The Company
rejected all attempts by the worker to remain in Birr and to
reorganise the work. By the Company's decision, the worker
must travel 17,000 miles extra per year in order to get to
work. The workers receives no allowance for the use of his
car.
2. The extra distance imposed on the worker is substantial
and it is a long-established practice in such circumstances
that workers compelled to transfer from one location to
another receive adequate compensation. The worker has
substantial service with the Company in Birr. It is not
practical at this stage for the worker to move his home from
Birr to Portlaoise. The Company has acknowledged the
worker's difficulties by offering to pay his re-location
expenses. As a compromise the worker is prepared to accept
the Rights Commissioner's Recommendation.
RECOMMENDATION:
Having considered the submissions from the parties. The Court is
satisfied that the Rights Commissioner's Recommendation is
reasonable in the circumstances and should be upheld.
The Court accordingly rejects the appeal and so decides.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
20th December, 1993 Evelyn Owens
J.F./M.M. _______________
Deputy Chairman
Note
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should by addressed to
Mr. Jerome Forde, Court Secretary.