FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2004 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : EASON & SON LIMITED - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Mr McGee Employer Member: Mr Doherty Worker Member: Mr O'Neill |
1. 1. Redundancy 2. Relocation Terms.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Company has 50 outlets spread throughout Ireland. In early 2006 the Company decided to re-locate the Wholesale Book Department (Santry), the Wholesale Stationary Department (Crumlin) and the Head Office (O'Connell Street) to a new purpose built warehouse in St. Margaret's, Dublin Airport. The dispute concerns the terms and conditions for the move of the Crumlin Branch (the Santry Branch moved in July, 2007, and Head Office was to move by the end of August, 2007.)
The dispute was referred to the Labour Relations Commission (LRC) and at a conciliation conference on the 18th of April, 2007, the Company put the following proposal;
Redundancy:
5 weeks' pay per year of service including statutory service with a cap of €90,000
Relocation:
- A gross lump sum of €1,000 to employees to be paid within one week of moving to the new premises.
- A further gross lump sum payment to employees of €1,000 to be paid within 12 months following the date of transfer to the new premises.
- In addition employees will receive two amounts of €750 within the same time frame calculated pro-rata on days worked.
- All payments will be confined to staff serving on 31st December, 2006.
The Union rejected the offer.It is seeking 7 weeks' pay per year of service with no cap, 2 additional days' leave per year and the provision of transport to and from the new location. The dispute was referred to the Labour Court on the 29th of May, 2007, in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relation Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 31st August, 2007.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3.1. The move to the new site will involve an additional 17 hours'travelling time each week for those workers who agree to move. The Company has proposed the same compensation as applied to workers in Santry who moved a distance of only 2.5 miles as against the 11 miles for the workers in Crumlin.
2. By refusing to provide transport the Company is pushing workers into seeking redundancy.
3. There have been a number of recent similar cases where companies have provided better settlements than are on offer in the present case.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4.1. The Company made the move to St. Margaret's asit became clear that more space was needed for the continued success of the business.
2. The disturbance package reached with Santry is quite high. In recognition of the extra distance involved for the Crumlim workers the Company was prepared to increase the amount but could not concede what the Union was seeking.
3. A redundancy situation does not exist as there will be jobs for everyone who decides to move to St. Margaret's.
RECOMMENDATION:
In all the circumstances of the case as outlined by the parties, the Court recommends that the last offer put by the Company at conciliation and in the LRC proposal of 18th April, 2007, to the parties should be accepted with the following amendments:-
- (i) The gross lump sum relocation payments to be increased from €1000 to €1500 each.
- (ii) The pro-rata additional lump sums to be increased from €750 to €1000 each,
Thus giving a total relocation payment of €5000.
- (iii) The Company should offer a 3 month grace-period during which workers may opt for the redundancy package (less any relocation lump sum already paid).
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Raymond McGee
7th September 2007______________________
CON/MB.Deputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Ciaran O'Neill, Court Secretary.