FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2004 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : INDEPENDENT NEWSPAPERS - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Duffy Employer Member: Mr Carberry Worker Member: Mr. Somers |
1. Disturbance payments
BACKGROUND:
2. In August 2000 an agreement was signed between the Company and the Union to facilitate the transfer of their printing plant from Abbey Street to Citywest. This agreement provided for production staff transferring to receive lump-sum payments of £30,000 each. In 2001, a request was made by two members of staff for a transfer to Citywest and were informed that they could do so but that there would be no compensation paid. The members accepted this but requested a guarantee from the Company that no compensation would be paid to any member of staff transferred afterwards. Three months later another member of staff transferred to Citywest and received compensation. The case before the Court concerns a claim by the Union on behalf of two of its members who are seeking the same payment for transferring to the Citywest plant.
The dispute could not be resolved at local level and was the subject of a conciliation conference under the auspices of the Labour Relations Commission. As agreement was not reached, the dispute was referred to the Labour Court on the 24th March, 2004, in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 29th July, 2004.
3. 1. The Company informed the members that the other worker transferred received the payment because he was a member of the production staff. When the two members sought the compensatory payment they were informed by the Company that there was no money available in the budget. At no time was it mentioned that the money was purely for production staff.
2. The Company, in a letter to the Union in February, 2003, stated that they were only conforming to an agreement with the other worker's Union whereby he had a six week period to reconsider his position on redeployment or a move to Citywest. He chose redeployment and did not move to Citywest until one year later. This clearly put the payment outside the terms of the agreement and left him in the same position as the two members i.e. with no entitlement to the payment.
3. The guarantee given to the two members by the Company should be honoured and payment to be made in full.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS
4. 1.A separate agreement was reached with the transport staff, including the two workers involved, which resulted in a pay increase of 28.4%, which also became a new pension basic
2. The Transport Section did not come under the original settlement terms. The Company has adhered to the conditions outlined in the workers' letter of appointment in August, 2001.
3. The worker who received the £30,000 when he moved to Citywest in December, 2001, merely exercised his rights under the original Agreement. The two workers concerned were agreeable to the terms offered at the time.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court accepts that the agreement originally reached in respect of the transfer to Citywest related to specific departments, and that the claimants were not encompassed by that agreement .
It appears to the Court, however, that the parties were at cross purposes to some degree in their negotiations as to the type of assurance being sought at the time the claimants agreed to transfer. The matter was further complicated by the fact that the assurance given to the claimants was not qualified by reference to the possibility of the named individual who subsequently transferred from Abbey Street receiving the package.
In all the circumstances, the Court is of the view that an ex-gratia payment of €12,700 (£10,000) should be paid to each of the claimants. This payment should be made on the strict understanding with the Union that it will not be relied upon or quoted in furtherance of any claim by or on behalf of any other person in similar circumstances now or in the future.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Duffy
12th August, 2004______________________
CONChairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Ciaran O'Neill, Court Secretary.