Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD95345 Case Number: LCR14862 Section / Act: S26(1) Parties: J. H. ROCHE LIMITED (THE IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS CONFEDERATION) - and - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION |
Claim by the Union, on behalf of 12 workers, for disturbance payment in respect of relocation.
Recommendation:
The Court considered the written and oral submissions made by the
parties.
Having taken into account all the information before it the Court
does not recommend payment for inconvenience as claimed.
Division: Mr Flood Mr Keogh Mr Rorke
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD95345 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR14862
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990
PARTIES:
J. H. ROCHE LIMITED
(REPRESENTED BY THE IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS CONFEDERATION)
AND
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Claim by the Union, on behalf of 12 workers, for disturbance
payment in respect of relocation.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Company manufactures animal feedstuff for customers in
the Munster region and is located at William Street,
Limerick. Due to the constraints of the existing premises
the Company proposes to move to a new building approximately
1.50 miles from its present location. The Union submitted a
claim for compensation in the amount of #1,000 for each of
the workers concerned for moving to the new premises.
Management rejected the claim. The dispute was referred to
the Labour Relations Commission and a conciliation conference
was held on the 28th April, 1995. No agreement was possible
and the dispute was referred to the Labour Court on the 2nd
June, 1995. A Court hearing was held in Limerick on the 26th
July, 1995.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The majority of the workers will have to travel
approximately two miles each way daily to the new
location. Traffic congestion will impact on the
workers. It was possible for some workers to walk to
the old location. They will now require transport.
2. It is unreasonable of the Company not to make a once-off
offer of compensation to the workers concerned
considering the additional transport costs which will
now be incurred by the workers.
3. The Court has recommended compensation in many similar
cases; LCR12040, LCR13992, AD5789 and AD5689 refer.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The move to the new premises will benefit workers.
Facilities will be vastly improved with a cleaner, more
pleasant working environment.
2. The move was absolutely necessary in order to ensure the
long term competitiveness and viability of the plant.
The Company invested substantial amounts of money to
secure the new premises.
3. The distance involved is minimal. There are
approximately 30 workers in the Company's employment and
concession of the claim would cost the Company in excess
of #50,000.
4. The Union's claim is cost increasing and is precluded
under the terms of the PCW.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court considered the written and oral submissions made by the
parties.
Having taken into account all the information before it the Court
does not recommend payment for inconvenience as claimed.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
11th August, 1995 Finbarr Flood
T.O'D./D.T. _______________
Deputy Chairman
Note
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to
Mr. Tom O'Dea, Court Secretary.