FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : CASTROL (IRELAND) LIMITED (REPRESENTED BY IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION) - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Ms Jenkinson Employer Member: Mr McHenry Worker Member: Ms Ni Mhurchu |
1. Relocation.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Union is seeking £8,000 compensation for each of 4 employees following the relocation of the Company from its premises in Alexandra Road to new premises in Blanchardstown. The Union states that the claim is justified for the following reasons:-
(a) Loss of subsidised canteen/hot meal facility;
(b) The relocation from Alexandra Road to Ballycoolin Industrial Estate, Blanchardstown.
The Union claims that in 1999 an agreement was concluded between the parties in relation to the restructuring of the Company. It states that the agreement was signed on the understanding that it could negotiate further with management in relation to the relocation issue.
The Company rejected the Union's claim. It states that the 1999 agreement provided for a payment of £2,000 to each union member. It stipulated that relocation would occur at some future date. In addition, a further £1,200 was paid to each employee when the Company did relocate.
As no agreement was possible between the parties the dispute was referred to the Labour Relations Commission. A conciliation conference was held on the 26th October, 2000, but no agreement was reached. The dispute was referred to the Labour Court on the 27th November, 2000 in accordance with Section 26 (1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. The Court investigated the dispute on the 27th March, 2001.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The compensation on offer is inadequate to compensate for (1) the loss of canteen facilities, and (2) increase in travel costs.
2. The 1999 restructuring agreement did not encompass the relocation issue.
3. The claim of £8,000 per employee is fair and reasonable and should be conceded by the Company.
4. The Company is a subsidiary of a large multinational oil company and has the financial resources to compensate the staff concerned.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The 1999 Rationalisation and Restructuring Agreement provided for a payment of £2,000 to each union member, which included agreement on relocation.
2. A further £1,200 per person was paid when relocation was completed.
3. The Company's offer is generous when compared to other agreements reached in relation to relocation claims.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court has given consideration to the written and oral submissions of both parties. Having taken into account the initial co-operation payment of £2000 made by the Company to all employees, the Court recommends that the Company's offer of £1200 should now be increased to £3000 (3809.21euros) per claimant, in full and final settlement of this claim.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Caroline Jenkinson
9th April, 2001______________________
LW/CCDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Helena McDermott, Court Secretary.