FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2004 SECTION 13(9), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : GOODYEAR DUNLOP TIRES (IRELAND) LIMITED (REPRESENTED IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION) - AND - A WORKER (REPRESENTED BY SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION) DIVISION : Chairman: Ms Jenkinson Employer Member: Mr Grier Worker Member: Mr Nash |
1. Appeal of Rights Commissioner's Recommendation R-031719-IR-04-DI
BACKGROUND:
2. The worker has been employed by the Company for the past 25 years. He works as a tyre fitter for the Company which for many years has had the contract for the maintenance and supply of bus tyres to Dublin Bus. He was employed at the Phibsboro garage.
In late 2004, the Company decided to close the Phibsboro garage and move to Harristown. Following negotiations with the Labour Relations Commission, Dublin Bus decided to pay compensation to its employees who relocated. The Union is seeking that the worker concerned, who also moved to Harristown, should also be compensated. The Company has rejected the claim.
The dispute was referred to a Rights Commissioner and his recommendation was as follows:
"The decision by Dublin Bus to relocate its garage from Phibsboro to Harristown and the decision to make a range of payments to their staff who were relocating to Harristown was made for business reasons and Goodyear Dunlop Tires (Ireland) Ltd. had no input those matters.
Having fully considered the submissions made by the parties I find against the Union's claim to be paid the same relocation payment as was paid to Dublin Bus employees. The claimant does not work for Dublin Bus and therefore has no entitlement to the conditions of employment applicable to that company's employees".
The Union appealed the recommendation to the Labour Court on the 16th of May, 2005, in accordance with Section 13(9) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 11th of August, 2005.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:3. 1. Throughout the history of the relationship between the Company and Dublin Bus, there has always been an acceptance that changes affecting employees in Dublin Bus which result in compensation would also apply to workers from the Company.2. The worker was fully flexible and co-operative with the Company and Dublin Bus during the move and helped ensure a smooth transition. He was in the same situation as Dublin Bus staff who transferred.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Company, as a service provider to Dublin Bus, was not consulted or asked about the move. Rather it had no option but to move or lose the contract.2. The Company has relocated a number of times in the past and no compensation was paid (details supplied to the Court). There is no precedent for payment of compensation for relocation as the Union claims.3. It is not possible to compare the Company with Dublin Bus. The claim is cost increasing and is precluded under the terms of Sustaining Progress.
DECISION:
Having examined the views of the parties expressed in their oral and written submissions, and taking all matters into consideration, the Court concurs with the findings of the Rights Commissioner and, accordingly, upholds his recommendation.
The appeal fails.
The Court so decides.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Caroline Jenkinson
23rd August, 2005______________________
CON/DHDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Decision should be addressed to Ciaran O'Neill, Court Secretary.