FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2001 SECTION 13(9), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : GLASNEVIN CEMETERIES GROUP (REPRESENTED BY IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION) - AND - A WORKER (REPRESENTED BY SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION) DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Duffy Employer Member: Mr Doherty Worker Member: Mr. Somers |
1. Appeal against Rights Commissioner's Recommendation IR13293/03/TB.
BACKGROUND:
2. The issue involves a worker employed by the Company for over three years, at their North Dublin location. The worker, because he was the most junior employee was transferred to another location (West Dublin). The Union claims that this transfer has imposed additional costs on him (toll bridge charges). The Company rejected this, and the matter was referred to a Rights Commissioner for investigation and recommendation. On the 16th June, 2003, the Rights Commissioner issued his recommendation as follows:
“In all the circumstances I recommend that the claimant be paid €1,000 in compensation for the extra costs involved in the transfer".
On the 4th July, 2003 the Employer body on behalf of the Company, appealed the Rights Commissioner's Recommendation to the Labour Court in accordance with Section 13(9) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 4th December, 2003, the earliest date suitable to the parties.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
3.1 The transfer was in line with established practice and was necessary for economic reasons and the claimant's continued employment.
2. Concession of this claim would lead to knock-on claims in respect of previous transfers and would set an unsustainable and unreasonable precedent for any future relocations.
3. The claim is cost-increasing and is prohibited under the terms of National Wage Agreements.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
4.1 The transfer added disturbance, discommodation and added cost to the worker, i.e. toll bridge charges.
2. It is a general custom and practice that when a place of an employee's work is moved and there is a financial and practical disadvantage, some form of financial compensation is agreed.
DECISION:
The Court has given careful consideration to the submissions of the parties to this dispute.
Having regard to all the circumstances of the case, the Court does not see a compelling basis upon which it should interfere with the recommendation of the Rights Commissioner. However, this decision was reached on the peculiar circumstances of this case. The Court upholds the recommendation of the Rights Commissioner on the basis that both parties agree that the settlement has no precedent value and will not be quoted or relied upon in support of any similar claim on behalf of any other person.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Duffy
12th_December, 2003______________________
JBDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Decision should be addressed to Jackie Byrne, Court Secretary.