Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD87930 Case Number: LCR11666 Section / Act: S67 Parties: BEWLEYS CAFES LIMITED - and - IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION |
Compensation for withdrawal of accommodation from one employee.
Recommendation:
5. The Court recommends that, in the circumstances of this case,
the worker should be paid #4,000 and that receipted furniture
removal expenses be paid. If the worker incurs legal fees and
stamp duty on the purchase of a house within twelve months the
Company should pay such reasonable expenses.
Division: CHAIRMAN Mr Heffernan Mr Walsh
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD87930 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR11666
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 67
PARTIES: BEWLEYS CAFES LIMITED
and
IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Compensation for withdrawal of accommodation from one
employee.
BACKGROUND:
2. The worker concerned has worked for the Company in various
positions since 1960. At present he is a sales
assistant/caretaker at the Grafton Street branch. Since 1965 he
has been resident in a flat above this premises. His wife and
four children reside there with him. In 1986 Bewley's Cafes
Limited faced serious financial difficulties and was taken over by
Campbell Catering with effect from December, 1986. In 1987 a
programme of refurbishment was implemented particularly affecting
the Grafton Street premises. A fire officer inspected the
premises and made a number of orders, one of which concerned the
building of a fire escape. The proposed location of the fire
escape would result in the worker's accommodating being no longer
suitable. The Company informed the worker that it wished him to
vacate the flat. The worker is willing to move out but sought
assistance from the Company in covering the expenses he will incur
as a result of the move. He owns a small house in Artane which,
he states, was intended as a residence for himself and his wife on
retirement and is not suitable accommodation for his entire
family. This house is currently rented. The Company initially
offered him approximately #1,000 to enable him to rent alternative
accommodation for three months while getting vacant possession of
his own house in Artane. This was not acceptable to the worker
who suggested that he would surrender the deeds of his existing
house in return for which the Company would purchase for him a
larger house in the same estate (a difference in value of #5,000
to #10,000). He also sought compensation for costs arising from
the move. No agreement was reached on the matter and it was
referred, on 20th October, 1987, to the conciliation service of
the Labour Court. A conciliation conference held on 30th
November, 1987, failed to resolve the issue and it was referred to
a full hearing of the Labour Court. The hearing took place on 7th
January, 1988.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. This individual is one of the most conscientious employees
of the Company. He has facilitated the Company by changing
jobs on a number of occasions and has always displayed great
dedication to his duties. He was extremely conscientious in
his caretaking duties at Grafton Street. He may have saved
the Company a great deal of money in his nightly check of
lights, water, motors and the general security of the building
there. The new owners of the Company should take account of
the worker's excellent record in this regard.
2. Since September, 1987, it has been most difficult for the
worker and his family to continue living in the flat due to
the noise level of construction work, lack of phone,
electricity and water facilities at various times, falling
debris, security anxieties, and so on. It appears to the
Union that management is most anxious to have the family leave
the flat quickly.
3. The Union seeks payment by the Company of the following
estimated expenses.
(a) The difference between the value of the worker's
existing house and a larger alternative one in Artane
(#10,000).
(b) The legal costs involved in (a) (#2,550).
(c) Furniture removal (#250).
(d) Compensation for loss of free rental, electricity,
telephone rental and heating (#5,000 per annum).
(f) Bus fares and travel time (#400 per annum).
4. The worker who is in his mid fifties and earning #170 per week
would have significant difficulty in raising an increased
mortgage. He in no way wishes to exploit his employer but seeks
to redress the serious losses which he will incur between now and
his retirement at age 65 as a result of the move. An important
integral part of his verbal contract of employment is being
altered.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
5. 1. The Company contends that, in the circumstances of this
case, no compensatory payment to the worker is warranted.
Every effort was made to assist him in making the move. These
efforts were rejected and taken as indicative of a liability
on the part of the Company to compensate the worker.
5. 2. The fact that the worker was asked to leave the premises
was as a result of recommendations made by a fire officer with
regard to safety. The Company must comply with the provisions
of the fire officer's order and has no control over it. It
has been argued that the worker's accommodation formed part of
his salary. However, in other such cases, no compensation has
been awarded as a result of changes which were outside the
control of the employer.
3. The catering industry is exceptionally competitive and, in
the context of the Company's situation, the Union's claims are
such that finance is not readily available to meet them.
4. The worker's family are grown up and the Company does not
consider that it has a responsibility for their housing. The
worker's existing house in Artane would be suitable for
himself and his wife but not for the full family. The Company
believes that, in these circumstances, the family members
should share the responsibility for provision of
accommodation.
5. An alternative option for consideration is to offer the
worker redundancy.
6. The worker is in receipt of a salary which is
substantially higher than that of any other sales assistant in
the shop. His overall remuneration package is still,
therefore, very favourable.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. The Court recommends that, in the circumstances of this case,
the worker should be paid #4,000 and that receipted furniture
removal expenses be paid. If the worker incurs legal fees and
stamp duty on the purchase of a house within twelve months the
Company should pay such reasonable expenses.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
John M. Horgan
________________________
28th January, 1988. Chairman
A.K./J.C.