INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2001
SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990
EBS BUILDING SOCIETY
- AND -
Chairman: Mr Duffy
Employer Member: Mr Keogh
Worker Member: Mr. Somers
1. Re- location payment
2. The Society is consolidating its staff to a new location at Burlington Road effective from 16th, December, 2002. At present the staff are working in seven different premises in and around the city.
The Union claim that their members will experience serious disruption and are seeking €3,000.00 per person as adequate compensation.
The Society claim that it involved all staff in all elements of the move. The Society
believe that the Union did not indicate that staff would refuse to move to the new
location in the absence of a settlement of this claim. Since there is mention of an
additional leave offer at conciliation it should be dealt with here.
The dispute was the subject of a conciliation conference under the auspices of the
Labour Relations Commission. As agreement could not be reached, the dispute was
referred to the Labour Court on the 27th of November, 2002 in accordance with
Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took
place on the 5th of December, 2002 the earliest date suitable to the parties.
3. 1. The Society unilaterally indicated its decision to move to the new location.
2. The Society rejected the Union's request for consultation.
3. A large number of the staff will be seriously unconvinced in having to commute to the new location in terms of time lost and extra costs involved.
4. As there are no car parking facilities available in the new location the move will have a distinct and appreciable negative effect in terms of time, expense, childminding and disturbance, on the staff in the Society.
4. 1. The move to a single office location was in response to staff and union demands to address the poor working environment in some of the existing office locations.
2. The Society has been all inclusive and informative at all stages of the design and preparation of the move.
3. The location of the new office is only two miles from our existing locations and 54% of the staff will as a result of the move reside nearer their place of employment.
4. The location is very accessible via public transport, with frequent services available.
5. The Society will as a result of the move, incur additional on going annual costs.
6. The Union is part of the National Agreement which prohibits the lodging of special claims. It also has an "Ongoing Change and Cooperation Agreement" which the Society believes places an onus on the Union to co-operate fully.
The Court does not support the claim, in so far as it relates to compensation for relocating, per-se, particularly as the conditions of employment applicable to the majority of staff provides for transferability. The Court does, however, recognise that there will be some inconvenience and expense incurred by staff in the short term.
Having regard to all the circumstances the Court recommends that in return for full co-operation with all aspects of the move and to offset any additional costs incurred by staff, the company should increase, on a once-off basis, the Christmas bonus payable in 2002 by €500 per employee. Subject to full co-operation having been delivered a further €500 per employee affected should be paid on 1st April 2003.
The additional leave offered at conciliation should also be provided.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
12th December, 2002______________________
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Carmel McManus, Court Secretary.