Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD94488 Case Number: LCR14628 Section / Act: S26(1) Parties: DAKOTA PACKAGING - and - DUBLIN PRINTING GROUP OF UNIONS;I.W.W.B.;I.W.W.U.;G.P.M.U.;SIPTU |
Compensation for relocation.
Recommendation:
The Court, having considered all of the views of the parties,
recommends that the employees be paid the sum of #400 in
compensation and be afforded the transport facility offered by the
Company in full and final settlement of the claim.
Division: Mr McGrath Mr Brennan Mr Rorke
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD94488 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR14628
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990
PARTIES:
DAKOTA PACKAGING
(REPRESENTED BY THE IRISH PRINTING FEDERATION)
AND
DUBLIN PRINTING GROUP OF UNIONS
SUBJECT:
1. Compensation for relocation.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Company manufactures printed folded cartons which it
sells to pharmaceutical, cosmetic and multinational firms.
At present it operates from Cross Guns and Slaney Road in
Phibsboro. The Company proposes to relocate its 137 workers
to Airways Industrial Estate. The Unions are seeking
compensation for the workers who, they claim, will be
inconvenienced by the move.
The dispute was referred to the Labour Relations Commission.
At a conciliation conference on 14th July, 1994, the Unions
were seeking a lump sum of #500 gross per person, ongoing
payment to make up for additional travelling time and
transport to and from the new location. The Company offered
#200 per person and transport limited to three months. At a
second conference on 13th September, 1994, the Company stated
that it would consider an increased lump sum if the Unions
agreed to the following:-
1. That all persons would fill in work sheets properly.
2. There would be acceptance of an implementation of an
electronic clocking-in system.
3. Acceptance and implementation of direct inputting and
outputting.
No agreement was reached and the dispute was referred to the
Labour Court on 30th September, 1994 under Section 26(1) of
the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing
took place on 1st November, 1994, (the earliest date suitable
to the parties).
UNIONS' ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The workers will be greatly inconvenienced by the move
to the new location which is five miles from the
previous location. It will involve additional
travelling time and expense. The Company operates shift
work and at present provides transport for early and
late shifts. Those on shift work will have neither
public transport nor, after three months, Company
transport in the new location.
2. The move will greatly benefit the Company financially.
Having all staff in one location will mean easier
supervision and increased production.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Company will have to move production to a single
location if it is to remain competitive. It is
necessary to have all aspects of production in one area
if quality is to be maintained. The Company has
potential customers who will not deal with the Company
in the present circumstances.
2. The move will be very costly to the Company. The sale
of the existing premises will cover less than half of
the costs involved in the relocation.
3. While the move will inconvenience some of the workers it
will be of benefit to others.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court, having considered all of the views of the parties,
recommends that the employees be paid the sum of #400 in
compensation and be afforded the transport facility offered by the
Company in full and final settlement of the claim.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
15th December, 1994 Tom McGrath
C.O'N./D.T. _______________
Deputy Chairman
Note
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to
Mr. Ciaran O'Neill, Court Secretary.