FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2004 SECTION 20(2), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : NORTH TIPPERARY COUNTY COUNCIL (REPRESENTED BY LGMSB) - AND - IRISH MUNICIPAL, PUBLIC AND CIVIL TRADE UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Ms Jenkinson Employer Member: Mr Grier Worker Member: Mr O'Neill |
1. Dispute in relation to Sustaining Progress - normal ongoing change - in particular a disturbance payment
BACKGROUND:
2. North Tipperary County Council office has recently relocated from the Courthouse in Nenagh to new premise outside the town centre. The distance involved in the move is approximately ½ to ¾ of a mile. The dispute before the Court relates to a claim by the Union for compensation for it's members for their co-operation with the relocation process. The Union contends that Clerical administrative and Professional grades undertook work outside of their normal duties to facilitate the move. Management rejects the claim on the basis that the co-operation sought by Management for the relocation was consistent with normal ongoing change as outlined in Section 21 of Sustaining Progress and as included in a local 'Action Plan'. The Union contends that it was not notified regarding a number of items in the 'Action Plan' nor had it discussed them. The Union had objected to the 'New Civic Offices' as part of the local plan.
- On the 29th October 2004, the issue was referred to the Labour Court, in accordance with Section 20(2) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 3rd May,2005
The parties agreed to be bound by the Court’s Recommendation.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Union previously submitted a claim based on a similar move by Limerick County Council staff to their new building and the disruption experienced by staff, and their co-operation with the organisation of files and equipment. Management acknowledged the co-operation in this instance. The Claim in relation to the Tipperary County Council move is less than the deal agreed in Limerick County Council as it was accepted that the latter's move was more disruptive in terms of the distance of the move, and the new location being outside the city centre.
2. The move to the new building was carried out efficiently and smoothly with the least amount of disruption to the public. At present staff from the Roads and Environment Sections are also participating in and co-operating with their move.
3. The co-operation and assistance of staff and the disruption suffered in relation to the move far exceeds normal ongoing change. The inclusion of the "no payment clause" in the Action Plan without notification or discussion with the Union 9 months before the move does no justice to the efforts and co-operation of staff around the time of the move.
MANAGEMENT'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The claim is precluded under the terms of Sustaining Progress under the heading of Change, Modernisation and Flexibility. The current pay agreement 'Sustaining Progress' states:"It is agreed by all parties that implementation of such initiatives in the areas of flexibility and change will not give rise to claims for increased rewards of staff in the form of promotions, regradings, allowances or other benefits"It is the Councils contention that the co-operation being sought is consistent with normal ongoing change as outlined in Sections 20 & 21 of SP.
2. Every assurance was given to staff in response to issues of concern identified by the Union. The move significantly enhanced the environment and facilities for staff in the form of additional parking, full canteen facilities and a creche. The new offices are state of the art and provide a very much enhanced working environment. Staff who assisted with the move, by working additional hours, were paid overtime.
3. This move can only be considered as part of normal and ongoing change and is precluded under the terms of Sustaining Progress. The Labour Court, in a recent recommendation, LCR 18114 ( St. Vincent's Hospital and PNA) has supported this position. The engineering grades employed in the Council have not submitted any claim for co-operation with this move. Concession of this claim will inevitably lead to a claim from this group of staff, who are equally affected by this move.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court has considered the views of the parties expressed in their oral and written submissions. The Court is satisfied that the move of offices was notified to staff well in advance, and that the action plan prepared in the context of the implementation of Sustaining Progress specifically provided for the co-operation with the move without any additional payments.
The Court accepts that in these circumstances the move of offices can be considered as normal ongoing change and, therefore, rejects the Union's claim.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Caroline Jenkinson
19th May, 2005______________________
JO'CDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Joanne O'Connor, Court Secretary.