Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD86564 Case Number: AD8685 Section / Act: S13(9) Parties: PENNYS LTD - and - IDATU |
Appeal by the Company against a Rights Commissioner's Recommendation concerning compensation for inconvenience caused to staff arising out of building work at the Company's Dun Laoghaire premises.
Recommendation:
6. The Court does not find adequate grounds for altering the
Rights Commissioner's recommendation and decides that it be upheld.
Division: CHAIRMAN Mr Shiel Ms Ni Mhurchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD86564 THE LABOUR COURT AD85/86
Section 13(9) INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969
APPEAL DECISION NO. 85 OF 1986
Parties: PENNEYS LIMITED
(Represented by the Federated Union of Employers)
and
IRISH DISTRIBUTIVE AND ADMINISTRATIVE TRADE UNION
Subject:
1. Appeal by the Company against a Rights Commissioner's
Recommendation concerning compensation for inconvenience caused to
staff arising out of building work at the Company's Dun Laoghaire
premises.
Background:
2. The Company acquired an adjoining premises in Dun Laoghaire,
refurbished it and amalgamated the two stores. When the new
complex opened the trading hours were changed from 9.00 a.m. - 5.30
p.m. to 9.30 a.m. - 6.00 p.m. The Union subsequently sought
compensation for the inconvenience caused to staff following the
change in hours. Local level negotiations failed to resolve the
issue and on the 10th January, 1986, the Union referred the matter
to a Rights Commissioner for recommendation. At a Rights
Commissioner's hearing on the 21st February, the Union raised the
issue of compensation for the inconvenience caused by the building
work. As this had not been dealt with at local level, management
refused to discuss it. Local level discussions were subsequently
held but failed to resolve the problem and the matter was referred
back to the Rights Commissioner for recommendation.
3. The Rights Commissioner, having investigated the dispute on the
16th June, issued the following recommendation on the 18th June:-
"The change in working hours imposes no abnormal
inconvenience on the employees so compensation cannot be
justified.
There was some inconvenience on all of them during the
refurbishment which was significant enough to warrant some
payment. I recommend #100 each."
The second part of the recommendation was rejected by the Company
and on the 8th July, it referred the matter to the Labour Court
under Section 13(9) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969. A Court
hearing took place on the 22nd September, 1986.
Union's arguments:
4. (a) Disturbance caused by building work went on for a
period of 5.50 weeks. This work consisted of knocking
down walls, sealing off the basement, drilling etc.
Some of this work was done on Sundays but the rest of
it was carried out during normal opening hours when the
workers concerned had to contend with excess noise,
dust, and draughts etc. Part of the wall in the shop
had been knocked down in order to have access into the
newly acquired premises.
(b) It is the Union's contention that because of the
abnormal level of noise, congestion, draughts, dust and
cold that the claimants are entitled to #200
compensation for the inconvenience caused to them
during the period in which the building work was going
on.
Company's arguments:
5. (i) An examination of the detail and timing of the work
carried out over the five week period will show that
very little of the work in question took place in the
Company's premises during normal working hours. Most
of the work took place in the adjoining store (which
was not occupied by staff) and the most of the work
that was carried out in the Company's own premises was
done on Sundays and late evenings. Cleaning staff were
available at all times to ensure that any inconvenience
was kept to a minimum.
(ii) This building programme could have been carried out in
a significantly shorter period but for the fact that a
conscious decision was taken to ensure that only a
minimal amount of work was carried out while the staff
were in the store. To the credit of the Company, it
did not opt to close down the store for a week or two
to enable the work to be carried out more speedily. If
this had been done it would have resulted in the staff
being laid off for the period with a consequent loss of
earnings.
(iii) This building programme represents a very significant
investment by the Company, one which was necessary to
consolidate its trading position. Failure by the
Company to do this would have resulted in staff
reductions and job losses. Part of this investment has
resulted in significant improvements in staff
facilities, including the provision of improved modern
canteen facilities, locker rooms and cash office.
(iv) Any concession of this claim would give rise to a
number of repercussive claims with considerable
financial implications. Its concession would also
force the Company to re-consider the manner in which
such refurbishments would take place in the future.
DECISION:
6. The Court does not find adequate grounds for altering the
Rights Commissioner's recommendation and decides that it be upheld.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
John M Horgan
4th November, 1986 ----------------
D.H./U Chairman