Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD93632 Case Number: AD93111 Section / Act: S13(9) Parties: IRISH RAIL - and - TRANSPORT SALARIED STAFFS' ASSOCIATION |
Appeal by the Union against Rights Commissioner's Recommendation No. BC 335/93.
Recommendation:
Having considered the submissions from the parties the Court finds
no basis for altering the Rights Commissioner's Recommendation.
The Court accordingly rejects the appeal and so decides.
Division: Ms Owens Mr Keogh Mr Walsh
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD93632 RECOMMENDATION NO. AD11193
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 13(9), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969
PARTIES:
IRISH RAIL
AND
TRANSPORT SALARIED STAFFS' ASSOCIATION
SUBJECT:
1. Appeal by the Union against Rights Commissioner's
Recommendation No. BC 335/93.
BACKGROUND:
2. The worker concerned is employed as a draughtsman at the
Divisional Engineer's Office in Galway. As part of a
comprehensive Company reorganisation plan this office is
being re-located in Athlone and the claimant's work base will
be there. The Union sought substantial compensation on
behalf of the worker at local level discussions, but the
parties could not reach agreement on the level of disturbance
payment. The dispute was referred to a Rights Commissioner
for investigation and recommendation. On the 4th October,
1993, the Rights commissioner issued his Recommendation as
follows:
"Having investigated the matter and having given full
and careful consideration to the points made by both
parties I have come to the conclusion that the
Company's last offer of #1,977 should be accepted by
the worker and I recommend accordingly."
(The worker was named in the Rights Commissioner's
Recommendation).
On the 8th November, 1993, the Union appealed the
Recommendation to the Labour Court under Section 13(9) of the
Industrial Relations Act, 1969. The Court investigated the
dispute on the 20th December, 1993.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The re-location of the worker's duties to Athlone will
involve him in a very substantial amount of daily travel.
The Company's offer is derisory considering this extra burden
imposed on him.
2. The Company has based its calculations for compensation
on an outdated productivity Agreement. Given that the worker
will incur an extra 13.50 hours per week travelling to and from
his place of work, and his hourly rate is #8.94 the offer of
#1,977 will be exhausted in over 16 weeks. The claimant,
however, will be required to commute for the foreseeable
future.
3. The Union is seeking a realistic level of compensation
in respect of the very substantial inconvenience caused to
the claimant.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. There are two levels of agreed disturbance payment where
staff are required to transfer from one town to another:
(a) where transfer of residence is not necessary - #825
(b) where transfer of residence is necessary - #1,195
The Company increased its original offer (#815) to #1,977 and
this amount was recommended by the Rights Commissioner.
2. The claimant will be in a position to commute between
Galway and Athlone. He has been offered the facility of
varying his workday to suit train times and will be offered
free travel.
3. The amount of disturbance payment offered to the
claimant is higher than the agreed level of payments.
DECISION:
Having considered the submissions from the parties the Court finds
no basis for altering the Rights Commissioner's Recommendation.
The Court accordingly rejects the appeal and so decides.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
22nd December, 1993 Evelyn Owens
T.O.D./M.M. _______________
Deputy Chairman
Note
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should by addressed to
Mr. Tom O'Dea, Court Secretary.