FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : CORK COUNTY COUNCIL - AND - IRISH MUNICIPAL, PUBLIC AND CIVIL TRADE UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Duffy Employer Member: Mr Murphy Worker Member: Mr O'Neill |
1. Subsistence Payment For Temporary Relocation
BACKGROUND:
2. The Council propose to redevelop the existing Motor Tax offices. Staff from the that office would have to be re-located to another building. The Union are seeking subsistence payments for these staff in line with what was agreed in 2001 when other Council staff made a temporary move. The Council reject the Union's claim on the grounds of its financial situation and the flexibility and modernisation clauses of the national pay agreements.
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. As agreement could not be reached, the dispute was referred to the Labour Court on 18th March, 2008 in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on 14th May, 2008.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1 The Council entered into agreement an with the Union in 2001 on the temporary relocation of staff to facilitate a major refurbishment project. The terms of this agreement was applied to all other staff that were subsequently required to relocate as the refurbishment project proceeded. Since the agreement was reached it has been applied to approximately 350 staff from various grades.
2 The cost of applying the terms of the 2001 Agreement to the staff involved is approximately €160,000. The Union is aware that this expenditure was factored into the budget for the demolition and construction of the new Motor Tax office and is available.
3 The Council has not included the co-operation of staff with the temporary relocation of the Motor Tax Office in its Action Plan. This supports the Union's view that the temporary relocation was also not viewed by the Council as part of their on-going change agenda.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1 The Council has not paid compensation to any group of staff which has moved in the last five years. The Council is investing considerable money in improving working conditions for staff, while continuing to operate in extremely difficult financial circumstances.
2 The modernisation Agenda in recent pay agreements allows change and new developments, payment of compensation would not be appropriate by the Council in this type of situation.
3 The practice in the public sector generally is not to pay compensation to staff when they are relocated. Where appropriate, overtime can be worked to agreed levels to facilitate the Motor Tax Office move to the new building
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court is satisfied that in the course of negotiations on the Union's claim the staff affected came to understand that the arrangement at issue would apply to them. In these circumstances the Court recommends that the arrangement apply in this particular case and that the subsistence be paid in line with normal revenue rules.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Duffy
28th May, 2008______________________
DNChairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to David P Noonan, Court Secretary.