Staff to get €300 for relocation

Staff at a Co Cavan footwear company should be paid €300 disturbance money for moving to a new premises less than a mile away…

Staff at a Co Cavan footwear company should be paid €300 disturbance money for moving to a new premises less than a mile away, the Labour Court has recommended.

Whelan Footwear of Cootehill argued that the distance involved was just over a kilometre (0.7 miles) and estimated that the "majority of employees are actually closer to their workplace" and therefore had not been inconvenienced.

Siptu had sought a payment of €1,000 for each of the staff and when the issue was referred to a Rights Commissioner, he recommended a €500 payment as compensation for the relocation. The company appealed to the court, describing the Rights Commissioner's award as "prohibitive".

It said a payment of £83 (€105) in recognition of a move out of the town in 1981 was a "goodwill gesture" when the company was in a "growth phase and had more resources at their disposal".

READ MORE

However, the union said the 25-year-old compensation payment set a precedent.

Siptu said the claim was not excessive as staff had remained loyal to the company through good and bad times. The staff had agreed on several occasions to less than the terms provided by national wage agreements and had co-operated with the company in reducing the workforce from 68 to 20.

In its decision yesterday, the court said having considered the company's submission that it could not afford to pay the recommended disturbance compensation and that the move was necessary to reduce costs and secure the business, it cut the payment to €300.

In a separate recommendation involving Whelan's, the court found that the company should pay six staff for a three-hour stoppage in February 2005 in protest about a new check-in and computer payroll system.

A Rights Commissioner had recommended payment for two of the three hours but Siptu appealed the decision.

The court found that the company did not engage in adequate consultation prior to the introduction of the new system.

The court also recommended that the money deducted should be repaid in the interest of good industrial relations.