FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2004 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : GALVIN'S WINES AND SPIRITS (REPRESENTED BY IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION) - AND - MANDATE DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Duffy Employer Member: Mr Doherty Worker Member: Ms Ni Mhurchu |
1. 1. Lump sum in respect of relocation. 2. On-going payment.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Company moved its stores to a new much larger premises in Cork (second move). The issue in dispute relates to a claim by the Union for a lump sum payment of €5,000 in respect of the relocation and for an on-going payment of €30 per person per week in respect of travel time and lunch allowance. This is the Company's second move and they are expecting significant productivity increases as a result of this. Workers have sought appropriate compensation for such a move as well as restitution for the loss of potential earings due to the failure of the Company to honour its previous commitments.
- 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. During conciliation talks the Company made an interim payment of €800 to 26 staff.
As agreement was not reached, the dispute was referred to the Labour Court on the 13th January, 2005 in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 27th June, 2005.
- 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. During conciliation talks the Company made an interim payment of €800 to 26 staff.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3.1 The new facility is a considerable distance from the previous site and each worker incurs a minimal additional 1800 miles per year in to and from the facility.
2. Workers are no longer in a position to go home at lunch times.
3. A proposal on a productivity bonus agreed by both parties was never introduced by the Company. This would have meant an opportunity for workers to increase their earning potential.
4. In light of the proposal staff significantly contributed to the resulting success and profitability of the Company, but the Company never introduced the scheme
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4.1 Any disturbance involved in the relocation was minimal.
2. The new location is less than 3 miles from the old facility and both locations are nearly equidistant from the City Centre.
3. The move to the new location has provided job security for those who transferred, and since the move employment has increased by nearly 20%.
4. The Company considers the interim payment as being fair compensation for the relocation.
5. The Company considers the change to be normal ongoing change and precluded under Sustaining Progress
6. In relation to the ongoing payment, this is also precluded under Sustaining Progress.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court recommends that the Company offer be increased from €800 to €1,200 in full and final settlement of the claim.
The Court further recommends that the Company pursue further the feasibility of introducing a bonus scheme, as previously discussed.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Duffy
3rd August, 2005______________________
JBChairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Jackie Byrne, Court Secretary.