FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2004 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : AN POST - AND - C.W.U DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Duffy Employer Member: Mr Murphy Worker Member: Ms Ni Mhurchu |
1. Compensation for disturbance.
BACKGROUND:
2. The dispute concerns nine permanent and two temporary / casual postpersons based at Mitchelstown Co.Cork. In mid 2002 a dispute arose between An Post and the Irish Postmasters Union (IPU). During the dispute staff in the Mitchelstown delivery office were re-located to Mallow, a distance of twenty miles. They were paid the additional travelling time for the duration of the dispute. When the dispute with the IPU was resolved in December, 2002 the Company ceased payment of the travelling time and sought to return the claimants to Mitchelstown delivery office. They felt unable to return citing poor relations with the Postmistress and unsuitable accommodation at the Mitchelstown location as the reasons for their refusal. The Union sought that the Mitchelstown premises be renovated or alternative Company premises be provided. The issue has not been resolved. The Union is seeking compensation in respect of the disturbance involved in respect of the Claimants' travel to and from Mallow. Management rejected the claim. The dispute was referred to the Labour Relations Commission. A Conciliation Conference was held but agreement was not reached. The dispute was referred to the Labour Court on the 26th January, 2006, in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Court hearing was held on the 17th February, 2006.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Claimants have been out-housed at Mallow for over three years. They incur additional travelling time of between one and one and a half hours' per day which is unpaid. The Claimants attend for duty early so that delivery times are unaffected.
2. The Company has failed to provide suitable accommodation in Mitchelstown despite several undertakings to do so. It is unreasonable for the Company to expect staff to travel from Mallow to Mitchelstown and back for nothing and without compensation.
3. The Claimants should be compensated by way of payment for the hours concerned and the payments should continue until such time as the Company fulfils its obligations by providing suitable alternative accommodation in Mitchelstown.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Claimants could have returned to Mitchelstown where they had worked before the IPU dispute commenced. They could have processed any grievances which they had through the normal channels. They chose not to do so.
2. Following the resolution of the IPU dispute in 2002 it was agreed between the Union and the Company that there would be no additional cost to the Company arising from the refusal of any staff to return to their original office.
3. The Company has been actively seeking suitable delivery premises in Mitchelstown since April, 2004. It is hoped that these premises will be ready for occupation in the very near future.
RECOMMENDATION:
It is agreed between the parties that the terms of a collective agreement concluded between them in 2003 precludes claims of the type before the Court where staff have voluntarily declined to relocate to their original base following the dispute involving the IPU.
The Court is satisfied that following the termination of that dispute there was no impediment to the staff associated with this claim relocating to their original base. Had they done so this dispute would have been avoided. They must, therefore, accept the major responsibility for what subsequently ensued. The Court does, however, accept that difficulties associated with returning to that base did arise at certain times over the period in question which were not of the staff's making.
The Court notes that a suitable premises has now been acquired at Mitchelstown to which the staff will shortly be relocated. In all the circumstances the Court is of the view that some further payment in recognition of the time spent in travelling to Mallow is justified. Accordingly the Court recommends a once-off lump sum of €2,000 to each full-time staff member and pro-rata to part-time staff in full and final settlement of this claim. This amount should be paid on the staff relocating to the new premises in Mitchelstown.
This Recommendation is based on the special circumstances of this case and is not to be regarded as having any precedent value and will not be relied upon or quoted to advance any similar claim in the future.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Duffy
27th February, 2006______________________
todChairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Tom O'Dea, Court Secretary.