FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2004 SECTION 13(9), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : WHELAN FOOTWEAR MANUFACTURING LTD (REPRESENTED BY IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION) - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Ms Jenkinson Employer Member: Mr Grier Worker Member: Ms Ni Mhurchu |
1. Appeal against Rights Commissioner's Recommendation R-033179-IR-05-DI.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Company is a family business, manufacturing shoes in Cootehill for 34 years. In 1981 the Company relocated to a premises on the Cavan Road on the outskirts of the town. In January 2006 production was transferred back to the original premises in the town, a distance of approximately 0.7 miles. The premises is a more appropriate size for the operation as it currently exists. The building has been extensively upgraded and refurbished.
The Union, on behalf of its members sought a disturbance payment of €1,000 per employee as compensation for their cooperation with the relocation.
The issue was referred to a Rights Commissioner for investigation and recommendation. In his recommendation which issued on the 20th February, 2006 he recommended a payment of €500 to each employee in recognition of the disruption caused by the relocation.
The Company appealed the recommendation to the Labour Court on the 22nd March, 2006, in accordance with Section 13(9) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1960. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 22nd November, 2006.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Company needed to move from the old location to realise cost savings in terms of overheads. The building is a more appropriate size for the level of staffing and current production.
2. The distance to the new premises is extremely small at less than a mile. The Company estimate that the majority of employees are actually closer to their workplace by virtue of the move and therefore have not been inconvenienced.
3. The award by the Rights Commissioner is prohibitive. The payment of £83 in 1981 was a goodwill gesture by the Company in recognition of the move out of town. The Company were in a growth phase and had more resources at their disposal.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Union are basing their claim on a precedent set when the Company moved to the new premises in 1981.
2. The Union do not believe the claim is excessive. The employees have remained loyal to the company through good times and bad and on several occasion agreed to less than the terms provided by national wage agreements.
3. The Company employed 68 people at its peak. The reduction to the present complement of 20 employees was achieved at little or no cost to the Company due to natural wastage, regular periods of lay-off, statutory redundancy and foregoing notice entitlements.
DECISION:
The claim before the Court concerns the Company’s appeal of a Rights Commissioner’s recommendation, which recommended a disturbance payment of €500 to each employee involved in the move of the Company’s premises to Chapel Lane, Cootehill.
The Company submitted that it could not afford to pay the recommended disturbance compensation and that the move was necessary to reduce overhead, control costs more effectively and to secure the business going forward.
Having considered the written and oral submissions of both parties, the Court recommends that a payment of €300 should be paid to each employee involved in the move.
Accordingly, the Rights Commissioner’s recommendation is varied.
The Court so decides.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Caroline Jenkinson
18th December, 2006______________________
Deputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Decision should be addressed to Madelon Geoghegan, Court Secretary.