Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD88119 Case Number: LCR11787 Section / Act: S67 Parties: EASON AND SON LTD. - and - IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION;IRISH PRINT UNION |
Claim for compensation for working under adverse conditions.
Recommendation:
4. Having considered the submissions made by the parties, the
Court accepts that management took all reasonable steps with the
builders to lessen the inconvenience caused to the workers. While
inevitably there was some disturbance caused this was largely
unavoidable given the nature of the re-construction work.
Having considered all the circumstances of the case the Court does
not recommend concession of the claim.
Division: Mr Fitzgerald Mr Collins Mr O'Murchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD88119 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR11787
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 67
PARTIES: EASON AND SON LTD.
and
IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION
IRISH PRINT UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Claim for compensation for working under adverse conditions.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Company began construction work in October, 1987, to
improve safety arrangements in the store, (on the recommendation
of a fire officer) and to upgrade and renovate the store to make
it more attractive for customers. The work involved major
structural changes, which caused disruption and disturbance in the
store. The Unions, on behalf of the workers concerned, served a
claim on the Company for compensation of £10 per worker per week
for having to work in adverse conditions. The Company rejected
the claim on the grounds that it had taken all possible measures
to keep dirt and dust to a minimum, and the work was necessary on
the grounds of safety. Agreement was not reached at local level,
and on 11th January, 1988, the matter was referred to the
Conciliation Service of the Labour Court. A conciliation
conference took place on 9th February, 1988. No agreement was
reached, and on 17th February, 1988, the matter was referred to
the Labour Court for investigation and recommendation. A Court
hearing took place in Dublin on 24th March, 1988.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. During the reconstruction and building work the workers
have had to endure noise, drafts, dust, dirt, abnormal cold
and physical disorganisation.
2. A pneumatic drill and other heavy building tools were
constantly in operation in work areas in the store. There
was a lot of noise, and there were clouds of dust hanging
over the area while the work was going on.
3. The screens erected by the builders were totally
ineffective, as dust continued to permeate around the area
where the reconstruction was going on. This caused serious
inconvenience to the workers.
4. The workers were required to continue working as normal,
despite the deterioration in conditions. The effect of the
disturbance caused by the work was not only to alter normal
working conditions. There was a detrimental effect on the
health of some workers.
5. The Company has taken the view that because it remained
open during the period of reconstruction, conditions were
therefore satisfactory. The Union contends that this
viewpoint is not sustainable.
6. The Company is incorrect in stating that there is no
justification for this claim. The Unions feel that the claim
is totally justified, and that the Court should concede same
in full with effect from the commencement of work. There are
a number of Labour Court recommendations conceding
compensation for this type of claim (details supplied to the
Court).
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. Instructions were issued to the architects and builders
in October, 1987, to the effect that all areas where work was
to take place were to be completely sealed by the erection of
full height stud partitioning with polythene membrane and
faced in plywood panelling (details supplied to the Court).
This in effect meant that the working areas were to be
totally insulated from the surrounding areas. One exception
to this was a small area on the 3rd floor where it was not
possible to totally insulate the area.
2. The builders were instructed that all heavy drilling was
to take place after closing hours when staff had vacated the
premises.
3. On very rare occasions it was necessary for the builders
to drill for short occasions during trading hours. However,
on these few occasions if staff queried management, the query
was immediately investigated and drilling either -
(a) discontinued until after hours
or
(b) put on a strict time limit - usually of a very short
duration.
This happened on few occasions and affected a small number of
staff only. At all times both the staff in that particular
area and the shop steward were kept informed of the
situation. It should also be noted that most of the working
areas within the building are removed from the areas where
construction has taken place.
4. Construction work has been carried out in the past in the
Company's stores, without any claims being made. This is the
norm within the retail trade in general. Cases where
payments have been made are very few, and in some cases
the payments are as much compensation for new work practices
as for any inconvenience caused by building work.
5. An alternative option for the Company would have been to
close the shop completely during the early part of the year
when trading was quiet, lay off staff and have the work
completed over a very short period. This would have been a
much less costly option than the one actually pursued.
6. Although staff suffered no financial loss, the loss
incurred by the Company was increased by -
(a) the cost of the extra screening erected to safeguard
staff from dust and noise and the consequent loss of
income as a result of reduced selling space on the shop
floor,
and
(b) the scheduling of heavy drilling to occur only at night
meant that the work continued longer than would
otherwise have been necessary.
7. The restructuring has made the premises safer and the
people benefiting most from this increased safety are the
staff.
RECOMMENDATION:
4. Having considered the submissions made by the parties, the
Court accepts that management took all reasonable steps with the
builders to lessen the inconvenience caused to the workers. While
inevitably there was some disturbance caused this was largely
unavoidable given the nature of the re-construction work.
Having considered all the circumstances of the case the Court does
not recommend concession of the claim.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
12th April, 1988 Nicholas Fitzgeald
P.F./P.W. Deputy Chairman