FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : SLIGO CO. COUNCIL - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Hayes Employer Member: Ms Cryan Worker Member: Ms Ni Mhurchu |
1. Disturbance claim.
BACKGROUND:
2. This dispute concerns a compensation claim for the disturbance experienced by the Workers having to move 7.5 km to a new Council yard. 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 9th December, 2009, in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on 17th May, 2011.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3 1 Travel to the new yard requires additional time and expense.
2 The Workers should be compensated for their cooperation and flexibility during the move to the new yard.
3Compensation for such disturbance is well-established both locally and nationally.
EMPLOYER'S ARGUMENTS:
4 1 The new yard provides better facilities for the Workers.
2 The Council is operating under severe financial constraints and cannot pay compensation for disturbance.
3. This claim belongs to a different era and has no merit.
RECOMMENDATION:
Having carefully considered the submissions of both parties in this case the Court does not recommend concession of the Union's claim.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Brendan Hayes
16th June, 2011______________________
JMcCDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Jonathan McCabe, Court Secretary.