FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : ISS SECURITY - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Duffy Employer Member: Mr Doherty Worker Member: Ms Ni Mhurchu |
1. Control Room Allowance, Disturbance, Relocation
BACKGROUND:
2. The issues before the Court concern a claim by the Union on behalf its members regarding disturbance, a relocation payment and the withdrawal of a control room allowance that was previously paid to workers. The claim concerns two seperate groups of security workers; the first group consisting of 14 controllers, supervisors and drivers who are seeking compensation for relocating from the original control room location in Sandyford, to a centralised control room now based in Celbridge. The second group consists of 4 security officers who are seeking compensation for disturbance as a result of relocating to a new site situated approximately 3-4 miles away from the original location. This group is also seeking restoration of a control room allowance in the amount of €20 per week and are seeking full retrospection of the allowance which the Union contends, was unilaterally withdrawn by the Company in 2009. The Company position is that it cannot concede to the cost increasing claims of the Union.
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 25th May 2010, in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on 20th August 2010.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1.The move from Sandyford to Celbridge adds several extra miles each way on the journey to and from work for the workers concerned. In some cases the commute time for employees to and from work has trebled in time.
2.The move from Sandyford to Celbridge has impacted financially on the workers as additional travel costs are incurred by means of the costs associated with the increased use of a car for example fuel and extra maintenance costs.
3.The control room allowance was withdrawn without agreement. The duties associated with the control room allowance continue to be carried out and the workload has increased rather than diminished. The Union's claim is for restoration and retrospection to be paid with regard to the control room allowance.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The disturbance compensation sought by the Union on behalf of its members is based on a settlement received by canteen staff who are employed by another company. The claim is unjustified as security officers are often required to move from site to site.
2. The Company has offered relocation compensation based on a previously agreed formula for similar moves. The offer entailed the cost of an annual bus ticket of which a percentage would be paid to each employee concerned based on the amount of extra travel that employee would be required to complete. The Union rejected this offer and sought an equal amount of compensation for each employee.
3. Management contend that the continuation of the control room allowance is no longer justified as the control room is no longer functional.
RECOMMENDATION:
Having considered the submissions of the parties the Court recommends as follows:
Control Room Allowance
The Court is satisfied that the circumstances in which this allowance was paid have significantly altered and that the continued payment of the allowances is no longer justified.
However, the Court has taken note of the Union's claims that workers concerned have some of the duties formally exercised in the Control Room and have some new responsibilities. The Court recommends that the parties should have further discussions in relation to these matters with a view to evaluating those claims in so far as they may have merit.
Relocation to Melview
Having regard to the distance involved the Court does not recommend concession of the Union's claim.
Relocation to Celbridge
The Court notes that the formula proposed in this case has been agreed with the Union and has been applied in similar circumstances in the past. In this circumstance the Court does not recommend any change in the agreed formula.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Duffy
2nd September 2010______________________
SCChairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Sharon Cahill, Court Secretary.