FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2001 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : UCD (REPRESENTED BY IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION) - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION AMICUS MSF DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Duffy Employer Member: Mr Pierce Worker Member: Mr O'Neill |
1. Disturbance Compensation.
BACKGROUND:
2. In mid 2002 UCD moved its Faculty of Veterinary Medicine from Ballsbridge to the College's main campus at Belfield. The Unions, on behalf of 29 workers, submitted a claim for compensation of €2,000 per worker in respect of cooperation with the move and the disturbance involved. College rejected the claim. At local level discussions the College made an offer to the claimants of one day's additional leave and one day's overtime . The Union rejected the offer. The dispute was referred to the Labour Relations Commission. A conciliation conference was held in October, 2002. Agreement was not reached. The dispute was referred to the Labour Court by the Labour Relations Commission on the 12th November, 2002. A Court hearing was held on the 5th February, 2003.
UNIONS' ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The claimants have given of their goodwill and a very significant amount of time and effort to ensure that the move of a whole Faculty took place with as little disruption as possible. The circumstances were exceptional. Without the claimants' cooperation/ contribution the College would have incurred additional costs and disruption over several months.
2. Prior to, during, and after the move, the claimants worked outside their normal remits and limits in order to accomodate various tasks.
3. The claimants were restricted during summer 2002 to taking their holidays in order to facilitate the move.
4. In a number of cases additional hours were worked by staff to minimise the disruption.
5. In previous instances of relocation of a Faculty or Department in UCD, either within or outside the Belfield campus, remuneration packages that have been agreed to recognise the efforts and affects on staff involved.
COLLEGE'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. It is Government policy that no further disturbance payments are made to workers in the Public Service (including UCD) after 1st January 1984. This position has, except in exceptional circumstances, been repeatedly upheld by the Court. The circumstances in the current claim could not be described as exceptional.
2. The claimants have benefited from a succession of pay awards including that under Clause 2 (iii) of the Programme for Competitiveness and Work in recognition of increased flexibility and cooperation with change.
3. The claim, if conceded, is substantial and may result in further claims from 53 unrepresented staff at the same grades.
4. The Faculty has a substantial operating deficit.
5. Staff transfers occur routinely in UCD and all are usually in workers' interests such as an upgrading of existing accomodation or a move to superior facilities as is the situation in the present case.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court notes that the College have acknowledged that additional work was undertaken by staff in the movement of equipment and other material and have made an offer of one days overtime together with one additional days leave to all staff affected.
Having considered the submissions of the parties the Court does not recommend any compensatory payments for the relocation per se. In the case of the additional work, the information before the Court suggests that some improvement on the College's offer is justified in the case of those associated with the claim.
Since detailed records do not exist of the actual hours worked by each individual, the Court recommends that uniform overtime payments of €400 be paid to each of the staff members concerned. In addition two additional days annual leave should be allowed, on a once off basis, to take account of the restrictions placed on the granting of annual leave during the move.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Duffy
13th February, 2003______________________
todDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Tom O'Dea, Court Secretary.