Labour Court Database
File Number: CD8929
Case Number: LCR12281
Section / Act: S20(1)
Parties: CORAS IOMPAIR EIREANN - and - TRANSPORT SALARIED STAFFS' ASSOCIATION
Claims on behalf of 30 staff for compensation in respect of moves from; (a) The Solicitor's Department C.I.E., St. John's, Islandbridge to Heuston Station, and (b) The Group Internal Audit Department from Transport House, Bachelor's Walk to North Wall.
7. Having regard to the circumstances of the case the Court does
not consider that payment of disturbance allowance is justified
and accordingly does not recommend concession of the claims.
Division: Ms Owens Mr Shiel Ms Ni Mhurchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD8929 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR12281
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969
PARTIES: CORAS IOMPAIR EIREANN
TRANSPORT SALARIED STAFFS' ASSOCIATION
1. Claims on behalf of 30 staff for compensation in respect of
moves from; (a) The Solicitor's Department C.I.E., St. John's,
Islandbridge to Heuston Station, and (b) The Group Internal
Audit Department from Transport House, Bachelor's Walk to North
2. The premises at St. John's Road was acquired by Dublin
Corporation as part of its road widening plans for that area. Had
C.I.E. not agreed to the sale the site would have been the subject
of a compulsory purchase order. The Association was advised
in April, 1988 that the staff located there would be transferred
to Heuston Station. A claim for a disturbance allowance as a
result of that move was rejected by the Company.
3. Around that time the Association were also informed that in
the Internal Audit salaried staff were also being transferred from
Transport House to North Wall as a result of the sale of Transport
House. The Road Freight section used to be located at Transport
House, but, as the road freight activities had diminished over the
years the Company decided to sell it and transfer the Internal
Audit Section to North Wall. The Company intimated that the
transfer was an interim measure and it hoped to relocate this
section at its Connolly Station complex in March, 1989. A claim
for disturbance compensation as a result of this move was also
rejected by the Company.
4. The issues were referred to the conciliation service of the
Labour Court. However the Company declined an invitation to
attend a conciliation conference. The Association then requested
an investigation and recommendation by the Labour Court under
Section 20(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969. The
Association agreed to be bound by the Court's recommendation. A
Court hearing was held on 3rd February, 1989.
5. 1. The claim for disturbance allowance has been raised
because the moves in question were brought about by a decision
to sell Company assets rather that suitably re-locate staff.
2. At the time of the sale of the Company's premises at
Islandbridge the Company was aware that a claim for
disturbance had been lodged. An amount to meet this claim
should have been included during the negotiations on the sale
of the property.
3. It is the Association's view that the only reasons for the
transfer of the Solicitor's Department and Internal Audit
Section staff viz the compulsory purchase of Islandbridge and
the sale of Transport House provide justifiable grounds for
the payment of disturbance compensation which are outside of
the current restrictions on such payments.
6. 1. It is a condition of employment of salaried grades that
they work at any location designated by the Company and
transfer location as required. There is no agreement between
the Company and the trade unions for payment of disturbance
compensation for transfer between locations in urban areas.
The only exception relates to increased productivity. There
was no increased productivity in these circumstances.
2. A ministerial directive has been in force since
1st January, 1984, which placed an embargo on the payment of
all claims for disturbance payments in respect of moves after
that date. This embargo is in respect of all employments in
the Public Sector.
3. There are good bus services to and from Heuston and
Connolly. Both Heuston and Connolly have restaurants, both
are served by the DART bus/train and both have good access to
shops. Having regard to government policy on the payment of
disturbance allowances and the fact that the staff covered by
this claim have not been discommoded to any appreciable