Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD95350 Case Number: LCR14806 Section / Act: S26(1) Parties: CIBA GEIGY - and - SALES MARKETING AND ADMINISTRATIVE UNION OF IRELAND |
Dispute concerning the requirement to change place of residence.
Recommendation:
The Court considered the written and oral submissions made by both
parties.
The Court accepts, as does the Union, that the Company has the
right to organise its regional boundaries as it requires in order
to match market spread.
However, given the concerns expressed by the Union, that the area
proposed for this employee is not viable, and therefore, he could
as a result of this change find himself surplus to requirements in
the near future, and, taking into account the contract of
employment of this employee, the Court makes the following
recommendation:
The Company to agree an area for this employee and the
employee to reside there Monday to Friday. The employee to
be available to commence work on Monday as he would if
resident in the area and to finish likewise on Friday.
Division: Mr Flood Mr Pierce Mr Walsh
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD95350 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR14806
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990
PARTIES:
CIBA GEIGY
AND
SALES MARKETING AND ADMINISTRATIVE UNION OF IRELAND
SUBJECT:
1. Dispute concerning the requirement to change place of
residence.
BACKGROUND:
2. 1. The worker was employed in 1985 as a sales
representative to cover the whole of Ireland. He was
based at his home in Ballinamore, Co. Leitrim and his
work involved the sale of animal care products through
vets and wholesalers. In 1988, his work was reorganised
and he was assigned to an area of 8 counties from
Donegal to Kerry. He serviced his area from his home in
Co. Leitrim.
2. Arising from a re-evaluation of the Company's animal
health business, the Company concluded that as the
majority of its business was in the South of Ireland, it
could not maintain a sales force where 3 out of 5 of its
representatives lived north of a line from Galway to
Cavan. At that time, the worker was the most junior
sales representative and he was reassigned to a new
sales territory in the Laois/Carlow area. The Company
insisted that the worker indicate his willingness to
move to the new territory not later than 23rd May, 1995.
In the event that he was unwilling to move, the Company
was prepared to offer the worker a redundancy package
(details supplied).
3. As the issue could not be resolved locally, it was
referred to the Labour Relations Commission and a
conciliation conference was held on 1st June, 1995. At
conciliation the worker agreed to move to his new area
and service it on a Monday to Friday basis provided that
it was made viable (details supplied). This was
unacceptable to the Company which insisted that the
worker fully relocated to the new area. The Union also
proposed a redrawing of the sales areas which would
allow the worker to continue to live in Co. Leitrim.
The Union's proposal was rejected by the Company.
4. No further progress was possible at conciliation. On
6th June, 1995, the dispute was referred to the Labour
Court under the terms of Section 26(1) of the Industrial
Relations Act, 1990. The Court investigated the dispute
on 13th June, 1995.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The worker was not consulted about any changes to his
sales area. The worker is willing to service his new
area on a Monday to Friday basis. It is not part of his
contract of employment with the Company that his entire
family must move every time he is assigned to a new
area.
2. The worker wishes to remain in the employment of the
Company. He has been flexible at all times in his
dealings with management and his performance has been
excellent. If the worker's family is forced to move
with the worker there would be a considerable loss
incurred due to the sale of his house and the loss of
his wife's job.
3. Within the sales profession it is not unusual for
workers to travel great distances from their homes to
service their areas. Under the Company's proposals the
servicing of Co. Donegal will involve a trip of between
130 to 160 miles by the assigned representative (details
supplied). The Union sees the Company's position as
being unreasonable and recommends that its proposals be
re-evaluated by the Company. The Company's present
proposals for the worker's new area are unviable.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Company's main business is located in the South of
Ireland. It is imperative that this market is serviced
by sales representatives who are located in their sales
areas. The decision to re-locate the worker represents
a continuation of the changes that have been taking
place throughout the Company in recent years.
2. It is a fundamental requirement of the Company that
representatives live in their sales areas. The Union's
alternative proposal was rejected as the main
concentration of sales representation must be in the
southern part of the country. Any decision on sales
areas are clearly the responsibility of the management
of the animal health division.
3. The Company has acted in a fair and reasonable manner.
The worker must confirm his decision to accept either
full re-location or the severance package offered by the
Company.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court considered the written and oral submissions made by both
parties.
The Court accepts, as does the Union, that the Company has the
right to organise its regional boundaries as it requires in order
to match market spread.
However, given the concerns expressed by the Union, that the area
proposed for this employee is not viable, and therefore, he could
as a result of this change find himself surplus to requirements in
the near future, and, taking into account the contract of
employment of this employee, the Court makes the following
recommendation:
The Company to agree an area for this employee and the
employee to reside there Monday to Friday. The employee to
be available to commence work on Monday as he would if
resident in the area and to finish likewise on Friday.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
19th June, 1995 Finbarr Flood
J.F./M.M. _______________
Deputy Chairman
Note
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to
Mr. Jerome Forde, Court Secretary.