FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : BORD NA MONA - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Flood Employer Member: Mr McHenry Worker Member: Mr. Somers |
1. Relocation.
BACKGROUND:
2. The dispute concerns a Company decision, as part of a comprehensive restructuring plan, to relocate the Horticulture Management and Administration Offices from Portlaoise to Newbridge. Originally there was strong resistance to the move by the 18 Clerical Workers involved. However, relocation is now accepted subject to terms being negotiated. At local level discussions Management proposed improved terms to the relocation package which was applied in all previous cases (Details to the Court). The offer was not acceptable to the Union which wants an ongoing payment in compensation and an unrestricted option of voluntary redundancy. The dispute was referred to the Labour Relations Commission. A conciliation conference was held on the 26 th April, 2000. A proposal put forward by the Industrial Relations Officer, recommended for acceptance by the parties, was rejected following a ballot of the workforce. No further agreement was reached. The dispute was referred to the Labour Court by the Labour Relations Commission on the 26th of April, 2000. A Court hearing was held on the 30th of May, 2000.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The proposed move for the majority of the workers concerned represents a round trip of an extra 58 miles per day or 290 miles per week. The ongoing travelling and childminding costs associated with the move represent a cost of up to almost £4,800 per member per annum. As this is an ongoing cost to each member, compensation if it is to be fair and realistic needs to be ongoing also.
2. The centralisation of Head Office functions will provide the Company with immediate and additional cost savings through increased productivity and reduced staffing. In these circumstances the workers should not be obliged to accept a once off payment and should also share in the savings on an ongoing basis to cushion the ongoing costs referred to.
3. The costs of the proposed move will reduce workers' current earnings and, therefore, represents a loss in net earnings to them. Proper recognition has not been given to this loss to the workers and this is patently unfair and indefensible.
4. Apart from a loss in earnings, workers will also spend more unpaid hours travelling to and from work. This represents a loss of valuable family and leisure time which in other circumstances would be compensated for at premium overtime rates. There has been no recognition of this in the Company's stance to date.
5. Where workers, for all of the reasons stated, decide not to relocate, the option of voluntary redundancy was sought. This was reluctantly agreed to for two workers only by Management at the Labour Relations Commission conference. The Union believe this should be made available without restrictions to any worker affected by the move so that each one is afforded a choice.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The decision to locate in Newbridge best supported the Company's primary objective of restoring the business to a position of sustainable profit with the maximum number of viable jobs. It was taken after consideration of a number of key factors. In particular, the cost of building a new office complex at Portlaoise would have exceeded the cost of upgrading and extending current surplus space and capacity in the Newbridge office complex by more than £400,000. Taking this and all other issues into consideration the existing Newbridge site emerged by a significant factor as the most suitable location.
2. The overall package offered is fair and reasonable for the relocation involved and is in line with the terms offered, accepted and implemented for previous relocations in Bord na Mona.
3. Taking account of the necessary grossing up of relocation payments and the provision of subsidised bus transport for a 3-month period the estimated total cost of the relocation package will be in the order of £100,000. In the highly competitive and low margin growing media industry, where for the first time in ten years the Horticulture business of Bord na Mona made a marginal profit in 1998/99, this level of relocation payment must be viewed as fair and reasonable.
4 . The Company cannot grant the option of voluntary redundancy because no redundancy situation exists at this time and all workers are required at the new location.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court, having considered the written and oral submissions made by the parties , recommends that the proposals put forward at the Labour Relations Commission be accepted with the following modifications;
Voluntary Redundancy
The voluntary redundancy package to be left open to the end of Decmber. 2000, at which time the Company would, subject to the business needs , and the numbers applying ,give favourable consideration to those applying for voluntary redundancy.
Transport
Management commitment to provide bus tranport on a subsidised basis for a three month period, to be extended to the end of December, 2000.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Finbarr Flood
6th June, 2000______________________
TOD/CCChairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Tom O'Dea, Court Secretary.