Up Arrow
 
 
Question Icon
 

Select an option from the dropdown list and press GO

 
Question Icon
 

Select an option from the dropdown list and then press GO

 
 
 

2002

Information Icon Water Mark
Up Arrow

Add to Binder allows you to add Workplace Relations content to your personal binder for viewing or printing later.

Binder icon image Binder

To access your binder, click the Binder link at the top of the page.

 
 

LCR17315

FULL RECOMMENDATION

CD/02/570
RECOMMENDATIONNO.LCR17315
(CC02/4632)
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2001
SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990



PARTIES :
DUN LAOGHAIRE HARBOUR COMPANY
(REPRESENTED BY IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION)

- AND -

SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION/ UNION OF CONSTRUCTION ALLIED TRADES AND TECHNICIANS /BUILDING AND ALLIED TRADES UNION /TECHNICAL ENGINEERING AND ELECTRICAL UNION


DIVISION :

Chairman: Mr Duffy
Employer Member: Mr Carberry
Worker Member: Ms Ni Mhurchu
SUBJECT:
1. Re-Location payment.


BACKGROUND:

2. The case before the Court concerns the Company's proposal to move maintenance operations within the current site. The Unions, on behalf of 16 workers, are claiming payments of €5000 per worker in respect of co-operation with the move. The Company rejected the claim. The dispute was referred to the Labour Relations Commission. A conciliation conference was held on the 2nd October, 2002. Agreement was not reached. The dispute was referred to the Labour Court by the Labour Relations Commission on the 4th October, 2002. A Court hearing was held on the 8th November, 2002.


UNIONS' ARGUMENTS:

3. 1. At the time of the 2000 Analogue Agreement the Unions were informed that
workers would, in the near future, be requested to transfer to the new site. As
no sale had taken place, nor any indication of the value of the site given, it was agreed in principle to accept transfer to the Terminal Building, subject to the normal industrial relations process taking place at a later date.

2. The Company's offer to divide €13,000 between the 16 workers for their co-operation in moving stores and equipment to the new premises was rejected.

3. The Unions' claim for €5000 per worker is reasonable in the context of recent settlements with workers in other companies.


COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:

4. 1. The Unions agreed in principle to the relocation in the context of the 2000 Analogue Agreement.

2. The Unions' claim is unreasonable given that the move is designed to secure continuity of employment and is to take place within the existing company site.

3. The Company is not prepared to offer any form of compensation for the move itself. It has made genuine efforts to resolve the issue by offering the Unions the facility to conduct the move, within working hours, for the same compensation as would be paid to a contractor. (€13,000 divided by sixteen, approximately €810.25 per worker).



RECOMMENDATION:

Having considered the submissions of the parties, the Court recommends that the Company improve its offer to one of €1,250 per employee affected, on the same terms as the previous offer.



Signed on behalf of the Labour Court



Kevin Duffy
15th November, 2002______________________
TODDeputy Chairman



NOTE

Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Tom O'Dea, Court Secretary.




 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

Share this page

 
logo-sml
Links|About the Reform Programme|Accessibility|Privacy Policy|Disclaimer|Sitemap

Registered Address: Department of Business, Enterprise and Innovation, O'Brien Road, Carlow