FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2001 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : HORSE RACING IRELAND - AND - MANDATE DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Flood Employer Member: Mr Carberry Worker Member: Mr O'Neill |
1. Compensation for transfer to new location.
BACKGROUND:
2. Horse Racing Ireland (HRI) was established in December 2001. Certain functions of the Turf Club were transferred to HRI, among them was the "Registry Office", now known as the Racing Department.
There were difficulties with space in the Curragh and the a viable option for the Company was to move to temporary premises in Kill, Co Kildare, while waiting for it's purpose built headquarters to be built in the Curragh. The new building is expected to be ready in 2007.
Some staff moved, under protest, in 2002. In August, 2003, the Company announced that all remaining staff at the Curragh were to transfer, temporarily, to Kill.
A number of meetings took place between management and the Union at local level to discuss the issue, but no agreement was reached.
The dispute was the subject of two conciliation conferences under the auspices of the Labour Relations Commission on the 18th and 27th of November, 2003. Settlement proposals were considered and rejected by the Union members.
The dispute was referred to the Labour Court on the 3rd of February, 2004, in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 26th of February, 2004.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. On transferring from the Turf Club to Horse Racing Ireland staff were given guarantees that there would be no change in their conditions of employment. They were further guaranteed that they would be located at the Curragh.
2. Staff are at a financial loss due to the lack of a canteen facility and the
cost involved in the additional travel required by the move.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4.1.The temporary move to Kill was necessary in order to bring about full centralisation and solve the problem of insufficient office space.
2. The Company was willing to reach an accommodation with staff members affected by the move in terms of some compensation.
3. The Union members rejected the proposal put forward following the second conciliation conference.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court, having taken into account all of the information supplied by the parties, and noting that the claimants have cooperated fully with the office move to facilitate the Court hearing recommends as follows:-
- The claimant's to accept the Industrial Relations Officer's proposal with the following modifications to (A) and (B).
- A and B to read as below
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Finbarr Flood
8th March, 2004______________________
MG.Deputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Madelon Geoghegan, Court Secretary.