Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD94648 Case Number: LCR14681 Section / Act: S26(1) Parties: ICS BUILDING SOCIETY - and - MANUFACTURING SCIENCE FINANCE |
Relocation compensation.
Recommendation:
The Court, given the circumstances of the case as expressed by the
parties in their oral and written submissions, does not find
grounds have been adduced to warrant concession of the Unions
claim.
Accordingly the Court does not recommend concession of the claim.
Division: Mr McGrath Mr McHenry Ms Ni Mhurchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD94648 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR14681
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990
PARTIES:
ICS BUILDING SOCIETY
AND
MANUFACTURING SCIENCE FINANCE
SUBJECT:
1. Relocation compensation.
BACKGROUND:
2. The ICS has been a subsidiary of the Bank of Ireland since
1985. In March, 1994, the Mortgage Service Centre (M.S.C.)
was established to manage all aspects of mortgage lending
within BanK of Ireland Retail (Ireland). ICS was successful
in procuring the M.S.C. It was decided to locate the M.S.C.
in Percy Place, Dublin 4 which involved the transfer of 68
workers from the ICS Head Office, Westmoreland Street, Dublin
1 to Percy Place, a distance of approximately 1.4 miles.
The dispute before the Court concerns the Union's claim for
#800 relocation compensation on behalf of 29 workers. The
Society rejected the claim. Local level discussions took
place at which other related matters such as security,
travel, lack of information, future promotional
opportunities and loss of amenities were discussed. As no
agreement was reached the matter was referred to the Labour
Relations Commission. A conciliation conference took place
on 30th September, 1994 but no agreement was reached and the
dispute was referred to the Labour Court by the Labour
Relations Commission on 9th November, 1994 under Section
26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court
hearing took place on 20th January, 1995.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. There is concern regarding individual safety at the new
location and there are other serious disadvantages for
staff as follows:-
(a) The close proximity of a drug addiction treatment
centre, has resulted in an increased number of
muggings and other such incidents in the area.
(b) A number of staff working late at night have been
solicited.
(c) There are no public parking facilities in the area.
(d) The staff have lost showering and rest area
facilities.
(e) Loss of social amenities.
2. The workers concerned have co-operated fully with
management to make the move a success. Management has
refused to acknowledge the general disturbance,
inconvenience and extra costs to staff.
3. An undertaking was given by management that a
considerable range of promotional positions would be
posted. Positions that have arisen have been filled by
Bank of Ireland personnel only.
4. There are considerable costs involved to the workers as
a result of the transfer. In the circumstances the
Union's claim for compensation, the introduction of
flexitime to facilitate travel arrangements and the
provision of taxis for staff working late is justified.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Society has addressed an extensive range of queries
listed by the Union. It has responded to all queries
and concerns raised and involved a representative group
of staff, including M.S.F. members in the Relocation
Task Force (set up to oversee the relocation process,
and to identity and resolve any issues which may have
arisen in their areas).
2. The Society has invested #1.8m in refurbishing the
building in Percy Place and in addition invested #1.7m
in state of the art computer systems. The new location
and its environmental advantages have been acknowledged
by many of the staff located in the M.S.C.
3. Movement of staff has always been standard practice
within the Society's offices.
The contractual provision states:-
"... you shall undertake such duties and exercise such
powers as the Society shall assign to or vest in you.
Such duties to be carried out at any of the Society's
offices in the Dublin area."
4. There is no precedent in ICS or within the Building
Societies generally for paying staff for relocating.
5. The parking arrangements are no less favourable in Percy
Place than those which applied for staff when they were
based at the Westmoreland Street location.
6. The degree of disturbance to the staff involved in the
move has been minimal and of a temporary nature only
during the period of the move. In the circumstances the
Union's claim cannot be justified.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court, given the circumstances of the case as expressed by the
parties in their oral and written submissions, does not find
grounds have been adduced to warrant concession of the Unions
claim.
Accordingly the Court does not recommend concession of the claim.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
20th February, 1995 Tom McGrath
F.B./D.T. _______________
Deputy Chairman
Note
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to
Mr. Fran Brennan, Court Secretary.