FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2004 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : DUNDALK TOWN COUNCIL - AND - AMALGAMATED TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Ms Jenkinson Employer Member: Mr Grier Worker Member: Mr. Somers |
1. Compensation for temporary relocation.
BACKGROUND:
2. The case before the Court concerns members of the ATGWU employed by Dundalk Town Council. In 2002, staff were asked to temporarily relocate while refurbishment was carried out on the Town Hall and Offices.
The Union's case is that staff were relocated to a premises which was on the outskirts of the town. This caused inconvenience to workers on a daily basis. The temporary premises was also unsuitable from a Health and Safety point of view. The Union is seeking compensation.
The Company's case is that compensation is inappropriate. The temporary relocation was necessary to facilitate the refurbishment, which would greatly improve the working conditions of all staff. The Company acknowledged a difficulty with regard to car parking and offered parking cards to the value of €150 which had been accepted by other members of staff but rejected by ATGWU members.
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 27th November 2003, in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 20th October 2004, the earliest date suitable to the parties.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The temporary premises were located on the outskirts of the town which due to the density of traffic caused great inconvenience to staff.
2. The temporary premises were unsuitable from a Health and Safety perspective as there were many environmental issues in the area which caused danger and inconvenience for the period of re-location.
3. The provision of parking cards was unsatisfactory as some members did not have cars and those who did were not guaranteed a parking space.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Union were advised that the move was temporary, with full facilities provided, and car parking cards to the value of €150 were provided if requested.
2. All other members of staff, except members of the ATGWU, accepted the temporary location and sought no compensation.
3. The Programme for Prosperity and Fairness, Sustaining Progress and Benchmarking all provided pay increases based on "ongoing co-operation with change". It is clear that the Union's claim does not accept that a temporary relocation for a period of 18 months with the provision of equal if not better facilities is within the ambit of such flexibility.
4. The claim is cost increasing and precluded under PPF and Sustaining Progress.
RECOMMENDATION:
The case before the Court concerns the Union's claim for compensation in respect of its members for their co-operation with the Town Council during the temporary relocation of its offices.
The Court notes that in an effort to resolve the dispute, the following proposal was made at conciliation:-
"In recognition of the continued co-operation of outdoor workers, Dundalk Town District Council are willing to give each worker 5 smart cards (parking). In return, the workers agree to continue their on-going co-operation and further agree to fully co-operate in relocating back to the town hall yard when work there is complete".
Having considered the views of the parties expressed in their oral and written submissions, the Court recommends that this proposal represents a reasonable offer under the circumstances and the Court recommends that it should be accepted in full and final settlement of the claim.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Caroline Jenkinson
15th November, 2004______________________
AH/MB.Deputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Andrew Heavey, Court Secretary.