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: Mr Duffy Employer Member: Ms Doyle Worker Member: Ms Tanham |
1. Appeal of Recommendation of a Rights Commissioner r-111071-ir-11/MMG
BACKGROUND:
2. The Claimant has been employed by Teagasc since February 1993 and is currently in the post of Programme Manager. The Claimant is seeking removal expenses relating to his transfer from Mellows Agriculture College Athenry Co. Galway to Johnstown Castle, Wexford in 2005. The case concerns the Department of Finance's refusal to pay the removal expenses as a result of the delay in applying.
The issue involves a claim by a Worker. The matter was referred to a Rights Commissioner for investigation and recommendation. On the 14th May 2012 the Rights Commissioner issued his Recommendation as follows:
"It is my recommendation that the respondent processes the re-imbursement for the claimant. I believe that the usual processes of receipts and eligible claims can verify the sum of €45,348.50 and this is the amount which should be reimbursed."
On the 30th May 2012 the Employer appealed the Rights Commissioners 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, 2012.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. There is no dispute about the entitlement or the amount claimed. The Claimant was not made aware that expenses had to be claimed for at the time otherwise they would be forfeited.
2. He is entitled to be paid this money, the delay in claiming has not cost Teagasc anything additional. The Department of Finance are trying to renege on their obligations by quoting a technicality.
EMPLOYER'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Claimant did not sell a house at either of the old locations in Athenry or Longford at the time of the transfer and therefore is not eligible to claim removal expenses under Circular 06/89.
2. The Claimant failed to submit the claim at the time of his transfer in January 2005 and inexcusably delayed submitting it for almost 5 years until November 2009. The Claimant did not apply for a deferral nor was granted a deferral. The claim is significantly outside the time limit as set down in Circular 06/89.
DECISION:
There is no dispute that the rules applicable to the payment of relocation expenses were not complied with in this case. It is clear that a claim must be presented at the time of the transfer, unless a deferral is granted which cannot exceed 18 months. There is no reasonable basis upon which a delay of the length at issue in this case can be overlooked nor is there any provision in the scheme for an extension of the deadline where a deferral had not be granted. In this case a deferral was neither sought nor granted.
In these circumstances the Court cannot uphold the Recommendation of the Rights Commissioner. Accordingly the appeal is allowed and the Recommendation of the Rights Commissioner is set aside.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Duffy
17th January, 2013______________________
JFChairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Decision should be addressed to John Foley, Court Secretary.