Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD94669 Case Number: AD9493 Section / Act: S13(9) Parties: KILKENNY COUNTY COUNCIL - and - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION |
Appeal against Rights Commissioner's Recommendation No. BC302/94.
Recommendation:
Having considered the submissions the Court is satisfied that the
Rights Commissioner's recommendation should be upheld.
The Court accordingly rejects the appeal and so decides.
Division: Ms Owens Mr McHenry Mr Rorke
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD94669 APPEAL DECISION NO. AD9394
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 13(9), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969
PARTIES:
KILKENNY COUNTY COUNCIL
AND
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Appeal against Rights Commissioner's Recommendation No.
BC302/94.
BACKGROUND:
2. 1. In August, 1994, it was recommended by the County
Engineer that the Waterford area office stores be closed
on economic grounds. The Engineer's recommendation was
subsequently approved by the County Manager who also
approved the transfer of the storeman to road duties
without any loss in salary.
2. The worker was unwilling to transfer to the roads
section. The Council responded that the only
redeployment opportunity available was to the adjoining
road overseer's area. The dispute was referred to the
Rights Commissioners' Service and an investigation took
place on 6th October, 1994. The recommendation as
follows, was issued on 18th October, 1994.
"In the light of the above I must uphold the decision
of the County Council to transfer the worker to road
work. I would recommend that the worker accept the
offer by the County Council that he should choose
which of the overseers areas to work in. In order to
acknowledge the unique circumstances of the worker and
his domestic arrangements I believe that the County
Council should make an ex-gratia goodwill payment of
#750 to him and that this be accepted by the worker.
I recommend accordingly."
The worker was named in the Rights Commissioner's
Recommendation.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Union is not appealing the concept of redeployment
but rather intends to argue that the compensation
recommended is inadequate. The worker took up his
position, on promotion, at great personal inconvenience
(details supplied). Having reorganised his personal
life, the worker is now back to the position he was in
before being promoted. All his efforts at reorganising
his family life have been in vain.
2. The change now being required by the Council is at a
great personal and financial cost to the worker (details
supplied). In these circumstances a reasonable
compensation sum would be #3,000.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. It is unusual to compensate workers in cases of
redeployment where it has been demonstrated that there
is no loss of income to the workers concerned.
2. In an effort to maintain employment, in a situation
where there is no work available, the Council has
offered redeployment to the worker at his existing rate
of pay. In the circumstances it is unreasonable to
expect the Council to pay compensation.
DECISION:
Having considered the submissions the Court is satisfied that the
Rights Commissioner's recommendation should be upheld.
The Court accordingly rejects the appeal and so decides.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
19th December, 1994 Evelyn Owens
J.F./D.T. ____________
Chairman