FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2004 SECTION 13(9), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : RHM IRELAND (REPRESENTED BY IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION) - AND - A WORKER (REPRESENTED BY SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION) DIVISION : Chairman: Mr McGee Employer Member: Mr Pierce Worker Member: Mr O'Neill |
1. Appeal of Rights Commissioner's Recommendation IR19446/04/DI.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Company operates a warehouse and distribution business from a number of locations around the country. The Company has made three major relocations in the last two years. The Union claims that the worker concerned should have been offered a payment in connection with a relocation from Glasnevin to Blanchardstown in May, 2004, a route distance is 7.2 km. The re-location affected eight members of staff, seven of whom were warehouse operatives and received re-location payments. The worker concerned, who is part of the administrative staff, did not receive a re-location payment. The Company's case is that the worker had the option to stay in Glasnevin but chose to move to Blanchardstown which was closer to her home.
The Union referred the case to a Rights Commissioner whose recommendation was as follows:-
"Having considered the submissions of the parties I find against the worker's claim to be paid a relocation allowance. The worker opted to transfer and, at all times, had the option to remain in her original location in Glasnevin.
(The worker was named in the above recommendation)
The Union appealed the recommendation to the Labour Court on the 30th of November, 2004, in accordance with Section 13(9) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 10th of March, 2005.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The worker was the only member of staff in Glasnevin who did not receive a re-location payment. The re-location was just as much an upheaval in her working life as it was for the other people involved.
2. The Union rejects the Company's assertion that the worker's journey to Blanchardstown is shorter than to Glasnevin. In fact, it takes as long, if not longer, to commute to the new location.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The worker was given the option to stay in Glasnevin or to move to Blanchardstown. She volunteered to move. She was consulted directly on the impact of the move and was told that if she chose to go to the Blanchardstown site she would not qualify for a relocation payment.
2. The other members of staff who chose to move to Blanchardstown all had further to travel as a result of the re-location and thus received the payment.
DECISION:
Having heard the submissions of the parties, the Court finds no grounds to alter the Recommendation of the Rights Commissioner and affirms it.
The Court so decides.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Raymond McGee
30th March, 2005______________________
CON/MB.Deputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Decision should be addressed to Ciaran O'Neill, Court Secretary.