FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : GRAPHIC REPRODUCTIONS (REPRESENTED BY IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION) - AND - GPMU DIVISION : Chairman: Employer Member: Worker Member: |
1. Claim for disturbance/inconvenience payment.
BACKGROUND:
2. 1. The Union has submitted a claim for disturbance/inconvenience money on behalf of its members (16) as a result of the Company's move from Glasnevin to Palmerstown. The Union claims that its members have suffered financial hardship as a result of the move. It stated that the new location was approximately ten miles from where most of the staff currently live. The Union is seeking a payment of £600 per person. Staff have also complained about the the lack of heating facilities in the new building.
2. The Company stated that it had to sell its premises in Glasnevin to survive as its financial position was very tenuous. If it had not moved, the likelihood is that the Company would no longer be in business. The Company stated that it was not in a financial position to meet the Union's claim. It would consider making a "once off" offer of £100 gross per person to settle the claim. The offer however, was rejected by the Union.
3. As no agreement was possible between the parties the dispute was referred to the Conciliation Service of the Labour Relations Commission. A conciliation conference was held on 27th August, 1996. No agreement was reached and the dispute was referred to the Labour Court under Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. The Court investigated the dispute on the 8th November, 1996.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The move from Glasnevin to Palmerstown has caused financial hardship for the staff as a result of the extra travel involved.
2. The Union wants a payment of £600.00 gross per person to compensate for the extra travel and disturbance/inconvenience incurred.
3. Staff have shown great loyalty to the Company over the past 10/15 years and should be compensated accordingly.
4. The Company has gained financially from the transfer to the new premises. Staff should not be expected to be at a financial loss as a result of the change.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The move to the new premises was a matter of survival for the Company. Without the move, the Company would no longer be in business.
2. The Company does not consider that the claim is well founded. Its financial position precludes it from conceding the claim.
3. The new premises is superior to the old one and offers a much better working environment for the staff.
4. The Company made an offer of £100 gross per person but this was rejected by the Union.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court recommends that the Company's once off offer to Employees of £100 gross, be increased to £150 nett as a means of resolving this issue.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Finbarr Flood
12th November, 1996______________________
L.W./D.T.Deputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Larry Wisely, Court Secretary.