FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : DULUX PAINTS IRELAND (REPRESENTED BY IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION) - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Duffy Employer Member: Mr Murphy Worker Member: Mr Nash |
1. Disturbance
BACKGROUND:
2. This dispute arose from the Company's decision to relocate its warehouse and office from Crumlin to Tallaght. In February 2007, the Union accepted a Labour Relations Commission proposal which, containedinter aliarelocation money of €2,000 per worker and an additional day's annual leave. The Union is now seeking that the terms of this proposal should also be applied to sales staff. The Company rejects this claim as the sales staff have company cars and did not operate out of the Crumlin office.
- This dispute could not be resolved at local level and was the subject of a conciliation conference under the auspices of the Labour Relations Commission. As agreement was not reached, the dispute was referred to the Labour Court on the 14th December 2007 in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 27th March 2008, the earliest date suitable to the parties.
3. 1. The Union recommended the propolsal to its members on the basis that it was to be applied to all employees operating out of the Crumlin premises.
2. The Company's arguement that sales staff are not entitled to the relocation package because they have company cars is undermined by the fact that marketing staff also have company cars yet they receied this relocation package.
3.The sales staff have had to endure longer travelling times to and from the new premises in Tallaght.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The sales staff are not office based and are not, therefore, entitled to relocation money.
2. The sales staff are not required to call into the office regularly as they use mobile phones and laptops to keep in contact with the office.
3.The sales staff are supplied with company cars and all associated expenses are reimbursed by the Comany; accordingly, the sales staff suffered no financial loss as a result of the relocation.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court recommends that the Union's claim should be discussed further between the parties at conciliation. The parties should seek the earliest possible date for a resumed conference from the Labour Relations Commission.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Duffy
11 April, 2008______________________
JMcCChairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Jonathan McCabe, Court Secretary.