LCR17931

FULL RECOMMENDATION

CD/04/506

RECOMMENDATIONNO.LCR17931

(CC04/7796)

INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2004
SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990

PARTIES :

JOHN A. WOOD LTD

- AND -

MANDATE

DIVISION :

Chairman: Mr Duffy
Employer Member: Mr Doherty
Worker Member: Mr O'Neill

SUBJECT:
1. Transfer of Head Office.

BACKGROUND:

2. The Company is a member of the CRH group and is a major supplier to the building and construction industry in the south of Ireland. The Company sold its head office and is transferring 40 office staff to a new premises 6 miles away. The Union are representing 17 of the workers affected. Prior to conciliation the Company offered financial compensation on the basis of a formula previously agreed in 1999 with SIPTU i.e.€285 per year of service (in recognition of the additional travel) plus €1,900 (as a gesture of good will in return for the co-operation of staff).

The Union was not willing to consider the above offer on the basis that:

it had no input into the negotiations at which the 1999 formula had been agreed;
the amount of money on offer under the formula was too low;
it was not willing to negotiate a separate arrangement for the workers who will not be affected as they want all staff treated fairly.

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 13th July, 2004 in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 11th August, 2004.

COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:

3.1 The Company believes that its final proposal of a lump sum payment for disturbance is among the most generous in Ireland.

2. The Union's claim is unrealistic and in no circumstances can the Company accede to such a claim.

3. The payments offered are generous and equitable having regard to what was paid to workers who were previously re-located.

4. Previous disturbance/relocation payment should be the standard against which terms should apply in this case.

UNION'S ARGUMENTS:

4.1. The proposals put forward by the Company were negotiated in 1999. The Company failed to take into account

wage/salary increases since 1999 in the Company of over 40%;
average salary/wage per hour in 1999 was €11 in 2004 it is €21;
3 workers will have little travelling but travel time will increase for all other workers;
Other agreements have been entered into with the Company since 1999 which resulted in higher amounts.

2. Management applies different arrangements in different situations.

3. The Company is part of the CRH Group which is an extremely profitable organisation.

4. The Company are making substantial financial gain by the sale of the current site.

RECOMMENDATION:

The Court believes that the formula applied in 1999 in respect of the relocation of the garage provides a fair basis for resolving the present dispute. The Court does however, recognise that the value of that formula should be updated.

The Court recommends that the amount for disturbance be increased to €2,280 and that the amount per year of service be increased to €343. In the case of those who will not incur additional travel, 50% of the amount produced by the application of this formula should be paid.

Signed on behalf of the Labour Court

Kevin Duffy
13th_August, 2004______________________
JBChairman

NOTE

Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Jackie Byrne, Court Secretary.