FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 13(9), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : TEAGASC - AND - A WORKER (REPRESENTED BY SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION) DIVISION : Chairman: Ms Jenkinson Employer Member: Mr Murphy Worker Member: Ms Tanham |
1. Appeal of a Rights Commissioner's Recommendation r-129425-ir-12/JOC
BACKGROUND:
2. This dispute arose from the compulsory redeployment of the Worker. This dispute was referred to a Rights Commissioner for investigation and recommendation. On the 30th August, 2013 the Rights Commissioner issued the following Recommendation:-
- "I recommend that the [Worker] is paid a once off lump sum of €1,250 as compensation in full and final settlement of her claim."
On the 8th October, 2013 the Employer appealed the Rights Commissioner's Recommendation to the Labour Court in accordance with Section 13(9) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 5th December, 2013.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The compulsory redeployment has caused the Worker unnecessary hardship and financial loss.
2. The Employer acted in contravention of the Public Service Agreement.
3. The Worker is entitled to compensation in accordance with Labour Court Recommendation LCR 20043.
EMPLOYER'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. This dispute concerns the interpretation of the Public Service Agreement.
2. The National Implementation Body is the appropriate forum for handling such disputes.
3. Notwithstanding the above, compensation is not warranted in this case.
DECISION:
The matter before the Court concerns the Employer’s appeal of a Rights Commissioner’s Recommendation which found in favour of the Claimant’s claim that the employer was in breach of the agreement regarding staff mobility policy under the Public Service Agreement 2010 – 2014.
Clause 6.1.23 of the Agreement states that“staff may be redeployed to a location within a 45 km radius of their current work location or of their home address, whichever is the shorter commute. In making such redeployment decisions regard will also be had to reasonable daily commute time”.
The Rights Commissioner found that the Claimant had been redeployed to a location not “within 45km” of her current work location and awarded her a once-off lump sum of €1,250 as compensation in full and final settlement of her claim. The Claimant sought that the Court would uphold the Recommendation.
The Court notes that the Claimant was redeployed from Dungarvan, Co. Waterford to Kildalton, Co. Kilkenny for a period of nine months. The Union submitted that the distance involved was 48.48 km (and a longer distance from her home). The Employer submitted that the shortest distance involved was 44.5km and rejected the claim.
Having considered the positions of both sides the Court notes that the independently verifiable information provided to the Court indicated that the distance involved exceeded 45km and accordingly finds in favour of the Claimant. In all the circumstances of this case the Court recommends that the Claimant should be paid a once-off lump sum of €450 in full and final settlement of the claim.
Accordingly, the Court varies the Recommendation of the Rights Commissioner. The Court so Decides.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Caroline Jenkinson
17th December, 2013______________________
CCDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Decision should be addressed to Ceola Cronin, Court Secretary.