Worker

Employer

Anonymised Parties

A Foreman

A County Council

Representatives

Anne Flynn SIPTU

Act

Dispute Reference No.

Date of Receipt

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969

10/01/2022

This dispute relates to a change of base which the worker says has caused financial loss and extra travel time.

The worker says he commenced employment in 1984 and since 1987/88 his home was considered as his work base and included the storage of machinery and was a meeting place for colleagues. This was changed in October 2018 by the Area Engineer to a different base which he has to report to at the start and end of each working day. He is paid a travel allowance but it still results in extra time and expense every working day; about 30 minutes each day and, fuel and wear and tear on his car.

This issue was brought through internal procedures and the worker cited precedence in relation to the payment of compensation but the company has rejected the claim for compensation, saying that this change is provided for in a contract given to him when he was promoted to Foreman in 2004.

The worker says he is at a loss of €12,752.25 for the period 8 October 2018 to 19 August 2021 and the loss is ongoing.

The employer says the worker commenced employment with them on 20 March 1984 and it is accepted that his home was deemed to be his base from that date or shortly thereafter. The worker was promoted to a Ganger on 14 June 2004 and was issued with a written contract. Paragraph 4 clearly sets out the right of the employer to reassign him to any premises in use by the Local Authority. The employer confirms that all Council depots must be covered by insurance. The worker’s home was seen as an anomaly, not the only one, in this respect. Therefore in 2018 for organisational and operational reasons, including Insurance and Health and Safety issues the decision was taken to base the worker in another Depot.

The employer says they acted within the provisions of its policies and procedures, including the specific provisions of the Worker’s contract of employment, and with due regard to Insurance and Health and Safety concerns.

In conducting my investigation, I have taken into account all relevant submissions presented to me by the parties. The parties agree on the facts surrounding the change of base for the worker.

The employer confirmed they could no longer allow the use of the worker’s home as a base where staff gathered and machinery was stored for Insurance and Health and Safety Reasons. The worker says they were happy to allow this for a number of years. I accept that the use of the worker’s home as a base was inappropriate for the reasons given by the employer; even though this had been allowed for a number of years. I also accept that the Worker’s contract of employment allowed for him to be moved.

During the hearing the employer confirmed they had paid compensation to another worker who was in a similar position. They said compensation was paid in this case because that worker did not have a similar mobility clause in his contract of employment. Based on a formula used by the County Council he received compensation of €5,333. It was also confirmed that two other workers in similar circumstances did not come to the employer with this issue.

The contract of employment of a worker underpins the bilateral relationship between the worker and the employer and, as such it should be respected in all disputes. When the worker accepted the position of Ganger neither he nor the employer could reasonably envisage the change that took place. Also, it must be remembered that whilst the worker benefitted from the arrangement it also benefitted the employer to have such a local base, at no cost to themselves.

I have considered all the circumstance surrounding this dispute and recommend the worker be paid compensation in the way of a one-off and final payment of €3,000. This recognises the unique circumstances of this dispute and should not be taken to be a precedent for other situations which might be considered to be ‘similar’.

Industrial Relations – compensation for change of base – not a precedent