FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : MUSGRAVE WHOLESALE PARTNERS LIMITED TRADING AS MUSGRAVE DELIVERED FOOD SERVICES (REPRESENTED BY IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION) - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Ms Jenkinson Employer Member: Mr Murphy Worker Member: Mr O'Neill |
1. (1) Relocation Payment and (2) Freezer Allowance Retrospection
BACKGROUND:
2. The issues before the Court concern a claim by the Union on behalf its members regarding a relocation payment and the application of a freezer allowance. In 2005 the Company concerned aquired another similar company. All staff transferred to the Company under a transfer of undertakings. The workers were informed that they would be relocating to the Company's Ballymun site. The workers had their terms and conditions harmonised with those of the existing employees in Ballymun. The one exception was a freezer allowance that had previously been ring fenced for 7 employees in Ballymun. The Union contends that all terms should have been harmonised including the freezer allowance. The Union is also seeking a relocation payment as the workers concerned now have an extra seven miles each way to travel to work and the delayed move which eventually happened in October 2008 came as an unexpected disruption. The Company position is that it cannot concede to the cost increasing claims of the Union.
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 19th November, 2009, in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 29th April, 2010, the earliest date suitable to the parties.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1 The move from Blanchardstown to Ballymun put seven extra miles each way on the journey to and from work for the workers concerned. They also face a lack of public transport as no bus goes directly between Blanchardstown and Ballymum. This creates great hardship for the workers especially at the end of the night shift.
2 The move from Blanchardstown to Ballymun has impacted financially on the workers as additional travel costs are incurred. There is also the issue of work life balance as the time spent travelling will reduce the time the workers can have at home.
3 The freezer allowance in Ballymun was suspended without agreement. When the workers concerned transferred to the Company they expected full harmonisation of terms and conditions, including the freezer allowance. The Union's claim is for retrospection to be paid with regard to the freezer allowance.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1The Company position is that there was minimal disturbance for staff when they relocated from Blanchardstown to Ballymun. The average additional travel distance for the staff concerned is 4.5 miles.
2The terms and conditions of the workers were standardised and their terms and conditions improved by between €10,000 and €12,000 each per annum. All the workers signed conracts for the Company accepting all terms and conditions including the transfer from Blanchardstown to Ballymun.
3 As part of negotiations the Company agreed to bring in the freezer allowance to all staff that met the specific criteria. The Company cannot concede the Union claim to back-date the freezer allowance on the basis of the cost of such a claim.
RECOMMENDATION:
The matters before the Court are submitted by the Union on behalf of eight workers.
Following the take-over of the Company in 2005 and the transfer of its employees from Blanchardstown to Ballymun in October 2008 two issues remain in dispute between the parties.
The Court has considered the oral and written submissions of both parties and recommends as follows:
Relocation Payment
The Court is not satisfied that the claim for a relocation payment is justified in the circumstances of this case and accordingly the Union’s claim is rejected.
Freezer Allowance
The Company implemented a freezer allowance of €41.00 per week or €8.20 per day to the Claimants with effect from 21st October 2008. The Union sought application of the allowance backdated to January 2005.
The Court recommends that the allowance should be paid to the claimants backdated to the date the claim was made. The Court understands that the date of claim was 28th April 2008 and accordingly recommends that the allowance should be paid to each of the eight claimants with effect from 28th April 2008.
The Court so recommends.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Caroline Jenkinson
17th June, 2010______________________
DNDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to David P Noonan, Court Secretary.