Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD88289 Case Number: LCR11898 Section / Act: S67 Parties: SAXONE SHOE COMPANY LIMITED - and - IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION |
Claim on behalf of three shop staff in the Company's William Street branch in Limerick for compensation for loss of earnings due to lay-off.
Recommendation:
5. The Court considers that the staff involved in this claim
endured considerable discomfort before the collapse of the
building and must have been considerably alarmed at their narrow
escape from serious injury. The Court therefore recommends that a
sum of £1,000 be divided amongst the three claimants in proportion
to their loss of income after social welfare payments.
Division: CHAIRMAN Mr Heffernan Mr O'Murchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD88289 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR11898
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 67
PARTIES: SAXONE SHOE COMPANY LIMITED
(REPRESENTED BY THE FEDERATED UNION OF EMPLOYERS)
and
IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Claim on behalf of three shop staff in the Company's William
Street branch in Limerick for compensation for loss of earnings
due to lay-off.
BACKGROUND:
2. In November, 1986, alot of reconstruction work was going on
above the Company's premises on the corner of O'Connell Street and
William Street in Limerick and staff in the shop had made several
complaints about noise and dust. On the night of the 20th
November, the building collapsed and what was left standing was
demolished the following day by the Corporation. The Company
consequently laid-off the staff but paid them up to November 28th.
The claimants were subsequently brought back to work on the 1st
September, 1987. During the nine months closure, the claimants
were paid Social Welfare and the Union is claiming that they
should compensated by having their social welfare payments brought
up to the level of their pay for the period. The Union maintains
that the total claim in monetary terms comes to £5,000 (details
supplied to the Court). The Company rejected the claim and on the
9th December, 1987 the dispute was referred to the conciliation
service of the Labour Court. No agreement was reached at a
conciliation conference held on the 14th April, 1988 (earliest
suitable date), and the matter was referred to the Labour Court
for investigation and recommendation. A Court hearing was held on
the 19th May, 1988.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Company is a subsidiary of the British Shoe
Corporation which in turn is part of the Sears Plc, the 42nd
largest Company in the list of 1,000 companies in Great
Britain. Sears Plc's turnover for 1986 was £2,500m with
profits of £229m. The Union is simply claiming small
compensation for three workers with long and loyal service who
through no fault of their own lost their earnings.
2. Sears has extended its profits in 1987 to £245m and has
been publicly complimentary to the shoe retail interests
within the Group which makes it more difficult to understand
why the claimants could not have been better treated.
3. The collapse of the building was not unexpected and in
fact the claimants had been warning Management that it was
likely to happen. The most senior of Irish management were
aware of the danger but the Company did nothing to investigate
what was happening.
4. The claimants were lucky to escape without injury and the
claim served did not include compensation for the worry and
subsequent emotional ill-feelings suffered by them. At
conciliation, in a gesture of good faith, the Union offered to
reduce its claim but the Company still refused to make any
offer.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. Despite being laid-off from the 19th November, the
claimants were paid up to the 28th. In addition they received
all accrued holiday pay (up to the 30th March, 1987) and a
Christmas bonus which would have been payable during the
month of December. These were all paid over the following
four week period. Furthermore, they were advised that the
lay-off would not affect the normal holiday or sickness
entitlements with the Company upon their return to work.
2. The Union has argued that the Company did not take
sufficient precaution to prevent the accident occurring. It
must be noted however that there was no action, legal or
otherwise, which Saxone could have taken as the works which
were being undertaken in the building were separate to the
area occupied by the shop and did not constitute an immediate
danger to employees or the public.
3. The collapse of the building has meant a very substantial
loss for the Company and it took a considerable time before it
was able to locate an alternative suitable premises for its
operation in Limerick. As soon as this became available, the
staff resumed normal full-time working.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. The Court considers that the staff involved in this claim
endured considerable discomfort before the collapse of the
building and must have been considerably alarmed at their narrow
escape from serious injury. The Court therefore recommends that a
sum of £1,000 be divided amongst the three claimants in proportion
to their loss of income after social welfare payments.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
John M. Horgan
_______________________
16th June, 1988. Chairman
D.H./J.C.