FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2001 SECTION 13(9), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : UNITED PARCEL SERVICE OF IRELAND (REPRESENTED BY IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION) - AND - COMMUNICATIONS WORKERS' UNION (CWU) DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Duffy Employer Member: Mr Carberry Worker Member: Ms Ni Mhurchu |
1. Appeal against Rights Commissioners Recommendation IR6152/01/FL.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Union submitted a claim on behalf of its members for the payment of "disturbance money" for moving to the Company's new premises in Finglas. It states that such payments were made in the past.
The Company rejected the Union's claims and stated that such payment was not warranted.
The dispute was the subject of a Rights Commissioner's hearing which took place on the 21st of November, 2001. The following is the Rights Commissioner's Recommendations:-
"I recommend that the workers, who are represented by CWU, and who are expected to move to the Company's new premises in Finglas, should each be paid the sum of £2,000 in recognition of any disturbance they may experience as a result of the move."
The Company appealed the Recommendation to the Labour Court on the 4th of December, 2001, in accordance with Section 13(9) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969. The Court investigated the dispute on the 17th of April, 2002, (earliest date suitable to the parties).
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. On two previous occasions when workers had to move to another location, they received payment of £2,000 per person.
2. The Company has set a precedent with regard to compensation for moving staff to new locations. It is unfair that management has refused to pay compensation in this case.
3. The Company should recognise the cooperation which staff have given over the years and management should see some way of rewarding them for this.
4. Staff will have to use their own cars to get to the new location as there is a lack of public transport in the area.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The new location is only three miles from the existing premises and does not justify the payment of any compensation.
2. Any relocation which is involved is minimal and is far outweighed by the benefits associated with the superior working environment pertaining in Finglas.
3. Concession of the claim would place significant financial pressure on the Company due to wider implications that it would have.
4. The Company requests that the Court sets aside the Rights Commissioner's Recommendation and find that the proposals put forward by management are fair and reasonable.
DECISION:
Whilst it had been agreed that a cost based compensatory payment should be negotiated, the Union subsequently made a claim in a fixed amount and the Company's offer was also expressed in terms of a fixed amount. In these circumstances, the Court is of the view that the general approach adopted by the Rights Commissioner was correct.
However, having regard to the distance of the new facility relative to the former base, the Court does not consider that compensation should be in the amount previously paid in respect of a move of significantly greater distance.
Having regard to all the circumstances, the Court determines that each individual associated with the claim should be paid €1,600 in respect of the move to the new premises.
The Recommendation of the Rights Commissioner is amended accordingly.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Duffy
22nd April, 2002______________________
LW/BRDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Decision should be addressed to Larry Wisely, Court Secretary.