FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : DEPARTMENT OF DEFENCE - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Flood Employer Member: Mr Pierce Worker Member: Mr Rorke |
1. Closure of Fitzgerald Barracks, Fermoy.
BACKGROUND:
2. In July, 1998, the Minister for Defence announced the closure of six army barracks (Naas Kildare, Fermoy, Ballincollig, Castleblaney and Clancy in Dublin). Five of the barracks were closed in September, 1998. Clancy Barracks will not be closed before the middle of the year 2000 at the earliest.
The dispute concerns the re-location of two civilian general operatives from Fermoy to Kilworth Camp, 5 miles away. The Union is seeking compensation for the additional ongoing costs which it claims, staff will incur. The two individuals concerned have remained on the payroll at Fermoy Barracks pending the resolution of the matter.
The closure of army barracks was the subject of discussion within the ambit of the State Industrial, Joint Industrial Council following which the Chairman of the JIC Trade Union Group submitted a number of claims within the context of the JIC in relation to matters of civilian employees of the barracks listed to close. Amongst these was a claim for compensation for increased travel/time spent travelling to and from the new location. It was indicated to the Unions that a formal Government decision, extant from the early 1980s, prohibited disturbance claims.
The matter was referred to the Labour Relations Commission. A conciliation conference took place on the 10th of November, 1998 at which an offer was made. This offer derived directly from and is identical to an agreement reached with PDFORRA, under the Department of Defence Conciliation and Arbitration Scheme (details supplied). Neither of the two individuals concerned satisfy the 'PDFORRA' criteria. As agreement could not be reached the dispute was referred to the Labour Court on the 21st of December, 1998 under Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place in Cork on the 3rd of March, 1999. Following the hearing both parties submitted additional information to the Court.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Department did not adhere to the normal principles of negotiation for the purpose of reaching agreement on the proposed barrack closures. No discussions or consultations took place with either the employees' representative or at JIC level prior to the employees being informed of the closures.
2. The move will entail longer travel distance to/from work. No public transport is available on the route which will result in both workers incurring substantial additional expense. One of the workers will be obliged to purchase some mode of transport to enable him travel the additional 12 miles per day.
3. Management's argument that it cannot depart from the PDFORRA agreement is unacceptable to the Union. The agreement is conditional on employees satisfying all three conditions and is designed to minimise the number of employees who would benefit under the agreement. It is the Union's contention that it is unfair to compare military personnel with civilian workers.
DEPARTMENT'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The standard terms and conditions of service for civilian employees provide specifically for the possibility of transfer by redeployment and reassignment between sites, at the discretion of the Minister, in the normal course of their employment with the Defence forces.
2. Management cannot enter into negotiations with the Union in regard to making payments which would, in effect, constitute a revisiting and renegotiation in the civilian area, of an agreement already finalised and agreed under the Conciliation and Arbitration Scheme for the representative association for enlisted personnel, PDFORRA.
3. The Department has continuously recorded the view that there is no entitlement to disturbance money arising from the various barrack closures and subsequent relocations. However, the Department is mindful that, in the particular circumstances of the barrack closures, it would be difficult to justify a situation where military personnel who satisfied certain criteria would receive a monetary payment on transfer under the PDFORRA agreement, whereas civilian employees transferring and relocating would not. The same criteria of eligibility for payment and the same amount of payment must be applied to civilian staff, as applied to enlisted military personnel, if any claims for such payment are to be realistically considered.
4. This claim is in relation to two named individuals at Fermoy. It seeks to ignore the PDFORRA situation. Concession of the claim would have major implications for the Department, not only in the case of four other civilian staff already redeployed from Fermoy barracks, but also all civilian employees transferred from the various closures last September. The claim would also have major implications for other Government Departments and for the wider arena of the entire public service, both as regards the policy and the expenditure aspects, and it carries a potential for PDFORRA to seek to reopen and to renegotiate its agreement.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court considered the written and oral submissions made by the parties.
The Court finds it difficult from management's information to assess the actual agreement arrived at for personnel transferring as part of this agreement.
The Court recommends that the concessions agreed for other groups involved in these transfers should apply to these claimants.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Finbarr Flood
23rd March, 1999______________________
F.B./D.T.Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Fran Brennan, Court Secretary.