FULL RECOMMENDATION
SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : BALFOUR BEATTY CLG (REPRESENTED BY IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION) - AND - TECHNICAL, ENGINEERING AND ELECTRICAL UNION SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Ms Jenkinson Employer Member: Ms Doyle Worker Member: Mr Shanahan |
1. Compensation on foot of relocation from Merrywell to Brownsbarn
BACKGROUND:
2. This dispute concerns a claim for compensation on foot of relocation. This dispute could not be resolved at local level and was the subject of a Conciliation Conference under the auspices of the Workplace Relations Commission. As agreement was not reached, the dispute was referred to the Labour Court on the 8th March, 2017, in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 18th April, 2017.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3.1. The Unions are seeking compensation for their members for the additional travel time, changes to their personal circumstances and wear and tear on their personal vehicles due to the move.
2.The Unions assert that all workers who are affected by the move should receive compensation including 'transient' staff.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Company accepts that there are grounds to support a disturbance payment but it is not prepared to support any disturbance payment for 'transient' staff.
2.The Company asserts that the new location will bring a significant improvement in working conditions which eliminates the past legitimate complaints about Merrywell.
RECOMMENDATION:
The matter in dispute between the parties relates to a claim for the payment of disturbance money due to the relocation of the Company’s depot from Merrywell, (Red Cow) to Brownsbarn, (Kingswood), a distance of approximately 7km.
The Union sought compensation for those involved in the relocation. During the course of the hearing the Company clarified the details of an offer made to SIPTU by letter dated 6thApril 2017 to pay an allowance to staff who work on a permanent basis at the Company’s depot at Merrywell (and will do so at Brownsbarn). The Company confirmed that such payments would be paid on anetrather than agrossbasis.
Therefore the Unions confirmed that the only issue before the Court concerned what are referred to as “transient” staff, i.e. those staff who are not permanently based at the Company’s depot who have use of company vehicles.
Having considered the position of both sides the Court does not believe that an allowance is warranted in such circumstances and rejects the Unions’ claim.
The Court so recommends.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Caroline Jenkinson
5th May, 2017______________________
CCDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Ceola Cronin, Court Secretary.