FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2001 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : NEW IRELAND ASSURANCE COMPANY - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION AMICUS MSF DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Duffy Employer Member: Mr Keogh Worker Member: Mr O'Neill |
1. Relocation
BACKGROUND:
2. Bank of Ireland Group owns two life assurance companies, New Ireland Assurance Company and Lifetime Assurance Company. An integrated management structure was formed in 2000, with common terms and conditions of employment were agreed for the staff of the companies.
In March, 2002, (BOIAS) the Labour Court issued a recommendation which brought a lengthy series of negotiations to an end. The case before the Court today derives from this new structure as a number of staff units are now being relocated from Dawson Street to Baggot Street.
The Unions are seeking payment for relocation/disturbance.
The Company has rejected the claim on a number of grounds. It maintains the settlement reached following the harmonisation discussions provided generous terms to staff which have encapsulated an issue like this.
The dispute was the subject of a conciliation conference under the auspices of the Labour Relations Commission. As agreement could not be reached, the dispute was referred to the Labour Court on the 13th of November, 2002. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 9th of January, 2003.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. There was a lack of consultation with the staff despite a Labour Court Recommendation of (February, 2002) requesting consultation between the company and the staff in all future negotiations.
2. The Company rejects the claim for compensation for additional travel costs on the basis that this issue was covered by the performance related pay agreement. This is a separate claim for compensation for relocation.
3. The staff will incur additional travelling costs and travelling time.
4. The relocation will involve staff accepting inferior office conditions and canteen facilities.
5. There are numerous precedents for employees in similar companies being paid compensation for relocation of this nature.
6. The move has had the following adverse impact:
(a) The staff restaurant is located in Block A which is in a separate building. It takes 5-7 minutes to get to the restaurant and as a result staff are not taking breaks.
(b) There is no facility for clocking in at the entrance and as a result staff are only clocked in when they use the PC.
(c) The restaurant in Block A is cashless and in order to use the facility staff are required to open a bank account in Bank of Ireland or A.I.B.
(d) The conditions within the building with regard to space, furniture, light, air conditioning, are inferior.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. From June, 2002, the Company indicated that it was likely the customer operations area would move to one location. Staff were kept informed by regular e-mail updates. The decision was then communicated to staff as soon as the company could confirm the final decision.
2. It is the view of the company that the performance related pay agreement incorporates payment for relocation.
3. Previous relocations of staff within the company group in the years 1992 and 1997 incurred no compensation for relocation.
4. A once off payment of €2539 was made to each staff member which was specifically paid for cooperation with change.
5. It is essential that the company retains the flexibility to move staff between the two locations to maintain competitiveness.
RECOMMENDATION:
It is noted that the agreement on common terms and conditions committed those involved to co-operation with the change Programme associated with the merger of the former Assurance Companies into BOIAS. Mergers of this nature inevitably involve some degree of relocation. Whilst this was not specifically referred to in the agreement, what is now required is encompassed by the commitment to co-operation with the change programme for which payments have already been made.
In the circumstances the Court does not recommend concession of the Union's claim for a further compensatory payment.
With regard to the other outstanding issues arising from the transfer which are referred to in the Union's submissions, the Court recommends that these matters be dealt with to finality within a period of two months.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Duffy
16th of January, 2003______________________
CMCM/MB.Deputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Carmel McManus, Court Secretary.