Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD87512 Case Number: LCR11428 Section / Act: S67 Parties: BUS EIREANN (GALWAY) - and - ITGWU |
Claim on behalf of three engineering operatives on tyre duties for compensation for inconvenience due to reconstruction work.
Recommendation:
6. The Court does not recommend concession of this claim.
Division: Mr O'Connell Mr Collins Mr Devine
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD87512 THE LABOUR COURT LCR11428
CC87561 INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR11428
Parties: BUS EIREANN
and
IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION (GALWAY BRANCH)
Subject:
1. Claim on behalf of three engineering operatives on tyre duties
for compensation for inconvenience due to reconstruction work.
Background:
2. During 1986 the Company decided to construct a new stores in
the Galway garage. Construction work on the new store began on
the 10th December, 1986 and was completed in June, 1987. The work
necessitated the removal of a wall separating the tyre store
where the workers concerned operated from an adjoining unused
freight store. The workers concerned complained that they were
now required to work in a more confined space due to the presence
of building materials and conditions were cold and draughty.
Plastic sheeting was installed in order to minimise draught
problems and space on the garage floor was made available to the
operatives to work in.
3. On 7th January, 1987 the Union submitted a claim on behalf of
the three workers (two full-time and one relief) for compensation
for inconvenience. A local level meeting was held in January and
subsequently the Company rejected the claim for compensation. On
3rd April, 1987 the matter was referred to the conciliation
service of the Labour Court. A conciliation conference was held
on 10th June, 1987 at which no agreement could be reached and on
25th June, 1987 the matter was referred to the Labour Court for
investigation and recommendation. The Court investigated the
dispute on 9th September, 1987.
Union's arguments:
4. (i) The workers suffered extreme inconvenience for
approximately six months when the reconstruction work
was taking place. The area in which they had to work
was extremely draughty, there was a very small work
area due to the storage of building materials, and it
was very difficult for the workers to move tyres in and
out of the stores areas. The stores had to be operated
as normal and more work was created. In addition, the
tyre store office was dismantled, therefore there were
no proper facilities for carrying out the relevant
clerical work. There is no more extra space in the new
stores areas than previously, therefore working
conditions have not been improved.
(ii) In previous cases, payment has been made for
inconvenience in such circumstances (details supplied
to the Court). The operators continued to carry out
their work as normal during the period of
reconstruction, although difficult and unpleasant
conditions existed and did not take any actions which
would have caused serious problems in the operation of
the road passenger and road freight operations.
(iii) The workers should receive a payment of #160 each for
the inconvenience and hardship experienced. The amount
claimed is minimal when compared to the cost of the
reconstruction work in the stores area.
Company's arguments:
5. (a) The Company ensured that the inconvenience suffered by
the workers was kept to a minimum. A temporary screen
was erected to shield the tyre store area when the
adjoining wall was knocked, space on the garage floor
was made available for the operatives to work in and
approximately 33% to 50% of the tyre stock was moved
with the workers to the new area. Although some moving
and re-arranging of tyres and wheels was necessary,
this is part of the workers duties. Also, the general
conditions in which the operatives worked in the space
provided on the garage floor were similar to those in
which other engineering operatives and craftworkers
normally work in the main garage building.
(b) On other occasions when reconstruction work has been
carried out in Bus Eireann garages and depots, claims
for compensation for inconvenience, disturbance, etc
have been submitted on the basis that the actual
working environment of the workers was directly
affected and resulted in a deterioration in the
workplace. This is not the situation in this instance.
The Labour Court itself has previously investigated
similar claims (Labour Court Recommendation No. 10758
refers) and has not recommended payment of
compensation.
(c) Following the reconstruction of C.I.E. whereby Bus
Eireann was formed, the Company has been set the
difficult task of breaking even financially and cannot
afford to pay compensation, particularly when it is not
justified. Concession of the claim would result in
repercussive claims from other workers in different
locations. The workers concerned have now been
relocated and have improved working conditions at a
great cost to the Company.
RECOMMENDATION:
6. The Court does not recommend concession of this claim.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
John O'Connell.
__________________________
Deputy Chairman.
24th September, 1987.
U.M./J.C.