FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : CLARE COUNTY COUNCIL - AND - 15 DRIVERS (REPRESENTED BY SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION) DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Duffy Employer Member: Mr Doherty Worker Member: Mr Nash |
1. Claim For Relocation Allowance
BACKGROUND:
2. This case concerns a dispute between SIPTU and Clare County Council represented by the LGMSB in relation to the claim for a re-location allowance. The Union's position is that staff associated with the move of the Council to new premises received the
allowance but that drivers employed by the Council who assisted with the move were
not.
Management's position is that the drivers were not relocated and had not been required to assist with the move. It further contends that the allowance was payable only to indoor staff who were required to relocate and had suffered disruption as a result.
The dispute was not 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 matter was referred to the Labour Court on 5th November 2008 in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on 26th May 2009.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3 1 The Drivers complied with the relocation and assisted in the move of all office equipment from the old offices to the temporary location and as a result are entitled to the same allowance that was paid to all others involved in the move..
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4 1 The Drivers were not required to re-locate during the refurbishment or to move to the new building on completion of the works. As the agreement provided for compensation to be paid only to those to whom both elements of the move applied, it is inappropriate to apply it to the drivers.
RECOMMENDATION:
It appears to the Court that the agreement entered into in 2005 was lacking in detail as to the grades and categories of staff that were to be encompassed by its terms. There is also an absence of clarity concerning who participated in the work associated with the move. To a considerable extent the difficulties leading to this dispute resulted from that absence of clarity.
Having regard to all the circumstances of the case the Court recommends that the Council offer and the Union accepts a payment of €175 per driver associated with this claim. This payment should be in full and final settlement of the Union’s claim.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Duffy
15th June 09______________________
AHChairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Andrew Heavey, Court Secretary.