LCR15708

FULL RECOMMENDATION CD/97/539 RECOMMENDATIONNO.LCR15708 (CC97/1268) INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : TESCO LIMITED - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Ms Owens Employer Member: Mr McHenry Worker Member: Mr O'Neill

SUBJECT:
1. Relocation of premises.





BACKGROUND:

2. The Company commenced trading at the new premises in the new Shopping Centre in Golden Island, Athlone in June, 1997. The new premises is very close to the old store. The staff employed in the old store were given the opportunity to move to the new premises or remain where they were. Thirty staff availed of the offer to move to the new location.

The Union is claiming compensation as follows:-

(a) an improvement at the top of the pay scale, i.e. from £206 to £215 and
(b) a once-off payment of £1,200 disturbance payment.

The Company rejects the Union's claim for compensation and states that the payment of compensation only arose where a store closed down and where staff did not opt for redundancy. Furthermore, it claims that the new Shopping Centre is only a five minute walk from the old store.

As no agreement was possible between the parties, the dispute was referred to the Conciliation Service of the Labour Relations Commission. A conciliation conference was held on the 13th of October, 1997 but no agreement was reached. The dispute was referred to the Labour Court under Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. The Court investigated the dispute on the 17th of November, 1997.


UNION'S ARGUMENTS:

3. 1. The Union is seeking compensation for its members for disturbance caused by the Company's decision to relocate to new premises.

2. Easons Limited, who also moved into the new Shopping Centre, has paid compensation to its employees.

3. The Company has agreements with Trade Unions to cover this type of claim.

4. Staff have experienced considerable inconvenience as a result of renovation work at the old shopping centre and should be compensated accordingly.



COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:

4. 1. Staff relocated to the new Shopping Centre of their own accord and many moved into promotional positions with enhanced earnings.

2. The relocation is so close to the old store that staff will not incurr additional travel or subsistence expenses.

3. There will be no loss of pay or employment as a result of the transfer of staff to the new store.

4. Where similar type claims have arisen the Company has made "once-off" payments to the social fund as a recognition of support received during reconstruction or relocation.





RECOMMENDATION:

The Court having considered the submissions from the parties and in the circumstances outlined by the parties is of the view that the Company's offer to make a contribution to the Staff Social Fund is reasonable. The Court accordingly recommends payment of a sum of £1,500 to the above mentioned fund in settlement of the claim.



Signed on behalf of the Labour Court



Evelyn Owens
20th November, 1997______________________
L.W./D.T.Chairman



NOTE

Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Larry Wisely, Court Secretary.