Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD9342 Case Number: LCR13984 Section / Act: S26(1) Parties: KILKENNY COUNTY COUNCIL - and - UNION OF CONSTRUCTION, ALLIED TRADES AND TECHNICIANS;SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION |
Dispute concerning two workers who are seeking Thomastown as a base rather than an enforced change to Gowran.
Recommendation:
5. Having regard to the circumstances which led to the change of
base by the County Council, and to the conditions upon which
travel and subsistence is paid, the Court can see no basis upon
which it can recommend concession of the Unions' claim.
The Court recommends, however, that in the event of improvements
emerging in the Housing Area, the County Council give favourable
consideration to the reversion of the workers concerned to the
housing programme and Thomastown base.
Division: Ms Owens Mr Brennan Mr Walsh
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD9342 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR13984
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990
PARTIES: KILKENNY COUNTY COUNCIL
and
UNION OF CONSTRUCTION, ALLIED TRADES AND TECHNICIANS
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Dispute concerning two workers who are seeking Thomastown as a
base rather than an enforced change to Gowran.
BACKGROUND:
2. 1. Arising from a reduction in the level of work available in
the Housing Department, two workers were transferred to work
with the Roads Section. At the same time, their base was
changed from Thomastown to Gowran.
2. The Unions claimed that the two workers had suffered a
significant loss of income and requested that Thomastown be
returned as their base. The claim was rejected by the Council
on the basis that the two workers were redeployed from one
area to another due to the decline in funding for the Housing
Department.
3. The dispute was referred to the conciliation service of
the Labour Relations Commission and a conciliation conference
was held on 22nd September, 1992. No progress was possible
and the dispute was referred to the Labour Court on 13th
January, 1993 under Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations
Act, 1990. A Labour Court investigation took place in Carlow
on 16th February, 1993 (the earliest date suitable to the
parties).
UNIONS' ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. An Agreement exists with the Council that workers employed
in the Building Section would be allocated a base area.
Should the workers travel outside this base, they would
receive a travel allowance. The workers have long service
with the Council and Thomastown has been their base at all
times. On 5th May, 1992 the workers were transferred without
discussion or agreement to the Roads Section at Gowran. The
workers attended at their new base under protest. The Council
has refused to discuss or address the Unions' concern at the
unilateral transfer.
2. The transfer means an inconvenience on a daily basis. The
financial loss is approximately #25 per week. This is the
loss of the travelling allowance which would be paid if the
workers' base was Thomastown. The Unions are seeking that the
workers be returned to their base at Thomastown and that the
parties discuss the implications of the proposed changes. The
Council must address the issues of inconvenience and financial
loss.
COUNCIL'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The issue in dispute is redeployment rather than simply a
change of base. The redeployment was necessitated due to a
decline in funding for the Housing Department. The Council's
concern is to protect jobs and the alternative to working with
the Roads Department was redundancy.
2. There is no loss in terms of wages to either of the
workers concerned and if they are required to travel outside
of their base they will be paid the appropriate allowance.
The travel allowance is variable and dependent on actual
travel and subsistence. It is not appropriate when the
workers are working at base.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. Having regard to the circumstances which led to the change of
base by the County Council, and to the conditions upon which
travel and subsistence is paid, the Court can see no basis upon
which it can recommend concession of the Unions' claim.
The Court recommends, however, that in the event of improvements
emerging in the Housing Area, the County Council give favourable
consideration to the reversion of the workers concerned to the
housing programme and Thomastown base.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Evelyn Owens
_______________________
4th March, 1993. Deputy Chairman
J.F./J.C.
Note
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to
Mr. Jerome Forde, Court Secretary.