FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2004 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : GALWAY VEC - AND - IRISH MUNICIPAL, PUBLIC AND CIVIL TRADE UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Duffy Employer Member: Mr Doherty Worker Member: Mr Nash |
1. Compensation for relocation.
BACKGROUND:
2. The case before the Court concerns a dispute between IMPACT and the Galway Vocational Education Committee in relation to compensation for re-location of the VEC to new premises in Athenry.
The Union are seeking re-location compensation amounting to €1,000 per person, payment of the appropriate mileage payments for 15 months and further compensation for staff who have had to purchase an additional car in order to travel to work.
Management of the VEC acknowledged that there had been co-operation with the move and were prepared to pay additional mileage where it had been incurred, and also to look at identified hardship cases where additional expenses had been incurred. The payment of €1,000 re-location compensation was rejected on the basis that it was a cost increasing claim precluded under Sustaining Progress and that it may lead to repercussive claims in the future.
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 14th December, 2004, in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 8th June, 2005, the earliest date suitable to the parties.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. All staff of the VEC have co-operated fully with the re-location and rather than compensate some more than others a proposal was put forward to treat all the workers equally.
2. The VEC recorded considerable savings as a result of the co-operation and help of staff with the relocation to Athenry. The claim as presented is fair and reasonable in the circumstances.
COMMITTEE'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The payment of €1,000 re-location is a cost increasing claim precluded under Sustaining Progress and may lead to repercussive claims in the future.
2. It is inappropriate to pay compensation to staff who have not incurred extra mileage.Hardship cases will be looked at on a case by case basis but these cases must be clearly identified.
3. In an attempt at resolution the Committee also offered payment of the appropriate mileage rates for 12 months to those incurring extra mileage.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court is satisfied that the Union's claims are minor claims and are, therefore, not precluded by the pay agreement associated with Sustaining Progress.
The Court notes that the VEC has offered to compensate those who incurred additional expense as a result of having to travel longer distances to work by paying travelling expenses for a period of 12 months. It has also offered to compensate those who have incurred expense in having to buy a car.
The Court recommends that this offer be accepted but that travelling expenses be paid over 15 months in line with the arrangement applicable to teachers. The Court notes that the claimants undertook additional duties associated with the move and that this resulted in savings to the VEC in removal expenses. The Court further recommends that each of the claimants be paid a further €300 in consideration of this additional work.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Duffy
30th June, 2005______________________
AH./MB.Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Andrew Heavey, Court Secretary.