FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2004 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : WILLIAM COX IRELAND LIMITED (REPRESENTED BY CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY FEDERATION) - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Mr McGee Employer Member: Mr Grier Worker Member: Ms Ni Mhurchu |
1. Parity of relocation payment.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Company manufactures Coxdome roof lights and are also involved in the distribution of associated plastic products. In 2005 the Company relocated its Head Office from Robinhood Industrial Estate to Cloverhill Industrial Estate, a distance of 3 miles. Following conciliation a settlement proposal for a relocation payment was agreed for on-site staff. The Company were not willing to agree the same disturbance payment for the five workers in question as they are different to the majority of workers in that they do not report to the Head Office site 99% of the time. A once-off goodwill payment of €500 was agreed for off-site personnel with a proviso that they could, if they so wished, pursue a parity claim after the move had taken place.
Following relocation the Union sought a parity relocation payment for the five claimants who received a disturbance payment that was less than their colleagues.
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 in June, 2005. As agreement was not reached, the dispute was referred to the Labour Court on the 21st June, 2005, in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 7th September, 2005.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1.It is normal in cases of relocation for disturbance money to be paid to affected workers.
2. The off-site workers concerned do not accept that they warrant a lesser sum than their colleagues whowork on-site.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1.Off-siteworkers do not report to Head Office every day therefore, the location of Head Office is irrelevant.
2. Off-site workers receive the same basic pay as on-site workers but are also in receipt of allowances for working off-site.
RECOMMENDATION:
Having considered the submissions of the parties, the Court finds that the compensatory amounts as set out in the proposal of the Industrial Relations Officer are appropriate. The Court, accordingly, does not recommend in favour of the Union's claim.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Raymond McGee
22nd September, 2005______________________
MG.Deputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Madelon Geoghegan, Court Secretary.