FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : TIPPERARY (SR) COUNTY COUNCIL AND CLONMEL BOROUGH COUNCIL - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION UNITE DIVISION : Chairman: Ms Jenkinson Employer Member: Mr Doherty Worker Member: Mr Nash |
1. Relocation/Disturbance Payment
BACKGROUND:
2. A new machinery yard was opened by Tipperary South Riding County Council and Clonmel Borough Council on the by-pass road at Carigeen, approximately 1.5 miles from the town centre of Clonmel. Both Unions are seeking travel/disturbance money for their members and the Councils reject the claim suggesting that the Unions have already agreed to cooperate with the move as part of agendas under Partnership, Benchmarking and Towards 2016.
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 was not reached, the dispute was referred to the Labour Court on the 1st December, 2008 in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 3rd February, 2009.
UNIONS' ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. There are a number of Workers who will have to travel up to 10 extra miles in order to reach their new base in Clonmel, it would be unfair if these Workers were not compensated for the extra travel required.
2. It is agreed that relocation was aired at the Partnership discussions, however it was not suggested by the Unions that there would never be a claim for reasonable relocation/disturbance expenses.
3. Such payments are quite prevalent in the Public Sector and have been so recommended previously by the Labour Court.
COUNCILS' ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The new facilities provide a significant improvement for staff as many had previously worked in very poorly developed sites without proper modern standards or facilities.
2. The Authorities involved have used Partnership as a method to work with staff in a fully consultative and transparent manner, they have accepted contributions and suggestions from staff in order to deliver a state of the art work environment.
3. The new facility has cost €7 million to develop, any additional cost for compensation would have to come from the Councils own resources and there is no budget for this, it would also be in breach of 'Towards 2016' as it is clearly a 'cost increasing' claim.
RECOMMENDATION:
The matter before the Court concerns a claim by both Unions for a relocation/disturbance payment due to the Councils’ move from Cahir to Clonmel, a distance of 10 miles. The Unions quantified their claim at €300 per mile.
The Councils’ rejected the claim, stating that the new facility represents a significant improvement in the working environment for the staff involved.
The Court notes that there has been significant consultation on the required move through the partnership process. The Court recommends that for those workers affected by the move who reside in excess of three miles from the new location, they should be paid €500.00 each in full and final settlement of the disturbance.
The Court so recommends.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Caroline Jenkinson
18th February, 2009______________________
JFDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to John Foley, Court Secretary.