FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2004 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : IARNROD EIREANN - AND - TRANSPORT SALARIED STAFFS' ASSOCIATION DIVISION : Chairman: Ms Jenkinson Employer Member: Mr Murphy Worker Member: Ms Ni Mhurchu |
1. Relocation expenses.
BACKGROUND:
2. The case before the Court concerns a dispute between Irish Rail and the Union regarding the appropriate payment of relocation expenses to a worker who incurred additional costs as a result of taking up a new position with the Company in Dublin having previously worked in Athlone.
The worker in question undertook a new role with the Company in May, 2000, and subsequently purchased a second property in 2003 and sought to have certain expenses reimbursed by the Company.
The Company's position is that the claim is inappropriate and excessive. Expenses are normally covered where a change in domicile is necessary as a result of relocation. In this case it was the purchase of a second property which resulted in the additional costs and as a result payment of expenses in this case is inappropriate.
The Union contend that the worker was informed by Management that the expenses would be paid. The worker had previously borne the expense of commuting three days per week for three years both in terms of accommodation and subsistence.
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 12th of May, 2005, in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 11th of November, 2005, the earliest date suitable to the parties.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The claim at present is totally inappropriate in this case. It was conveyed to the worker that the payment of expenses apply only when one property is sold and another purchased.
2. With a view to resolution, the Company offered to pay a lump-sum payment and to make up the balance of the claim with an interest free loan to be repaid should the second property be sold. This proposal would have dealt adequately with the situation but was rejected by the Union.
3. Concession of the claim as presented by the Union would have serious implications for the Company.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1.The worker had incurred more expenses than are actually being claimed while commuting for three years prior to the purchase of the second property. For three years the worker paid his own accommodation and subsistence expenses which amounted to approximately
€22,700.
2. Management's offer in relation to the dispute is totally inadequate. It is unacceptable that the worker be treated in such a way after 36 years of impeccable service with the Company.
3. The situation has led to both financial difficulties and increased stress levels. After three years commuting three days per week at his own expense, the worker tried to alleviate the financial burden and stress by purchasing a second property in Dublin. An assurance had been given prior to the purchase of the second property that the expenses would be covered.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court has considered the oral and written submissions of both parties. The dispute concerns a claim by a senior Manager in the Company for payment of legal expenses following his re-location from Athlone to Dublin.
The Company submitted to the Court that the Manager was not eligible for payment of the expenses as he retained his residence in Athlone and purchased an additional residence in Dublin. Payment of the expenses was conditional on the sale of the house in Athlone and the purchase of a new residence in Dublin.
The total cost of the legal expenses involved in the purchase of the house in Dublin amounted to €23,865.00. In order to assist the Manager in the purchase cost of the house in Dublin, the Company offered to pay €12,000 towards the expenses and to advance a loan for the remaining amount (€11,865.00) to be repaid without interest out of the proceeds whenever the house is sold.
Having investigated all aspects of this case, the Court is of the view that the offer made is a generous one and recommends that it should be accepted in full and final settlement of the claim.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Caroline Jenkinson
7th December, 2005______________________
AH/MB.Deputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Tom O'Dea, Court Secretary.