FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2001 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : ENTERPRISE IRELAND - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Duffy Employer Member: Mr Doherty Worker Member: Mr O'Neill |
1. Compensation payment in respect of relocation.
BACKGROUND:
2. Arising from the merger of Forbairt and the Irish Trade Board to form Enterprise Ireland a restructuring of certain functions took place resulting from which the staff in the finance department were required to move from Sandymount to Glasnevin. The move took place in 2001. At the time the Agency agreed to:
-Two days annual leave (once-off)
-Arrange and fund a social function,
-Finance staff receiving payments in the amount of €126 in recognition of the cooperation of staff during and after the move.
The Agency has also provided a shuttle bus service, morning and evening, from Connolly Station to the office in Glasnevin in order to accommodate those workers who travel by DART. The Union initially submitted a claim, on behalf of nine workers, to have the terms of the agreement reached in the case of the Blood Transfusion Services Board (BTSB) applied which would have yielded approximately €2,000 per worker and additional annual leave. Subsequently the Union submitted an enhanced claim to be calculated on the following basis:
Distance between Sandymount-Glasnevin = 14 miles per day
€1 per mile = €14 per day = €70 per week
€1.10 Toll Bridge = €2.20 per day = €11 per week
Total = €81
Over a period of 18 months = €81 x 78 = €6,318 per worker
Management rejected the claim. The dispute was referred to the Labour Relations Commission. A conciliation conference was held but agreement was not reached. In May, 2003 the dispute was referred to the Labour Court in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Court hearing was held on the 14th August, 2003.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Union has spent over three years trying to resolve this issue and Management has failed to realistically negotiate with it on the claim.
2. While the claimants originally adopted a position of no relocation prior to an agreement on this matter including an agreement on a compensation package, they ultimately decided, as a gesture of goodwill and to promote industrial harmony, to move. However, this was on the accepted basis that an agreement would be reached on a compensation package based on similar compensation agreements in the Public Sector e.g. the Blood Transfusion Services Board (BTSB) claim.
3. The claimants have gone through various phases of restructuring/integration in the employment which has been extremely difficult but they have accepted these changes.
4. Compensation/disturbance packages for relocation are very common throughout industry including the public/state and private sectors.
5. The Union's claim is consistent with many other agreements and it is based on actual loss (mileage and toll). It is reasonable given that it is a once-off lump sum payment covering a definitive and short period of time.
AGENCY'S ARGUMENTS :
4. 1. It is Government policy since 1983 that no disturbance payments are made to workers in the Public Service. This position has, except in exceptional circumstances, been repeatedly upheld by the Labour Court. The circumstances of this claim are not exceptional.
2. The distance between the two locations is very small. The Agency is aware that half of the claimants are in fact living closer to their place of work as a result of the move.
3. The contracts of employment of workers contain a mobility clause which allows the Agency to relocate staff to any other agency office location worldwide in line with business needs.
4. Over the past number of years there have been many instances of relocation of staff within the Agency locations. It is established practice that no compensation payments were made for any of these moves.
5. Concession of the claim would have serious implications for future moves involving significant cost repercussions for the Agency.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court has carefully considered the submissions of the parties and has taken full account of the additional information provided subsequent to the hearing.
The claim as presented to the Court is based on purely notional considerations and does not relate to any particular degree of inconvenience or expense occasioned by the move of location. Furthermore, the claimant grades are all directly linked with corresponding civil service grades for the purpose of pay and conditions of employment. In the Court's view the practice in the civil service in relation to relocation compensation should also apply. In that regard Department of Finance Circular 6/89 is still applicable and this precludes the payment of compensation of the type claimed.
For these reasons the Court does not recommend concession of the claim.
It is noted that at conciliation the Agency did offer to consider individual cases where genuine hardship could be demonstrated as a result of the move. The Court further recommends that this offer be accepted.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Duffy
26th September, 2003______________________
todDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Tom O'Dea, Court Secretary.