INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2001
SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENCE
- AND -
BUILDING AND ALLIED TRADES' UNION
Chairman: Mr Duffy
Employer Member: Mr Grier
Worker Member: Ms Ni Mhurchu
1. Compensation for relocation in Cathal Brugha Barracks.
2. The dispute concerns two workers who were employed in the Furnishing Section, Barracks Services Workshops, Cathal Brugha Barracks. In February, 2001 the Department decided to close Barracks Services Workshops at military barracks countrywide and at Clancy and Collins Barracks in Dublin. In August, 2001 agreement was reached under the auspices of the Labour Relations Commission on a compensation package associated with the closure of Clancy Barracks and in July, 2002 a further agreement was negotiated whereby workers who transferred to different barrack locations received a once off lump sum of €635. The Union submitted a claim for the application of the Clancy Barracks agreement to the claimants on the basis that its closure had a direct impact on the elimination of their jobs in Cathal Brugha Barracks. The Department rejected the claim. The dispute was referred to the Labour Relations Commission. A conciliation conference was held but agreement was not reached. The dispute was referred to the Labour Court in April, 2003 in accordance with Section 26 (1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Court hearing was held on the 18th July, 2003.
3. 1. The claimants gave full cooperation with regard to the completion of all outstanding orders and assisted in arrangements relating to the closure of the Barracks Services Workshops at Cathal Brugha Barracks.
2. When the claimants were redeployed in Cathal Brugha Barracks they were assigned to posts as vehicle builder and in joinery work, which were significantly different to their jobs in the Furnishing Section.
3. The Clancy Barracks package provided for certain payments in respect of workers who completed specific tasks and the Union is seeking payment for the two claimants as per Clause 4 of that agreement.
4. 1. The Clancy Barracks closure agreement was applicable only to employees who worked in that location and did not cover the claimants.
2. They continue to work in the same barracks as heretofore. They requested to move to their new work locations on the closure of the Barracks Services Workshops.
3. Concession of the claim would have significant financial implications for the Department.
The Court is satisfied that the agreement relating to the closure of Clancy Barracks does not apply to the workers associated with this claim. Accordingly, the Court does not recommend it's concession.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
24th July, 2003______________________
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Tom O'Dea, Court Secretary.