Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD88115 Case Number: LCR11752 Section / Act: S67 Parties: DUBLIN CORPORATION - and - ELECTRICAL TRADE UNION |
Claim for compensation for loss of personal property during working hours.
Recommendation:
6. The Court accepts that the scheme operated by the Corporation
limits compensation to a maximum of £50 "ex-gratia", and this
should be paid.
However the Court also accepts that an expectation was created in
this instance that greater compensation would be paid and
recommends that a further ex-gratia payment of £50 be made in this
particular case.
Division: Ms Owens Mr Shiel Ms Ni Mhurchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD88115 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR11752
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 67
PARTIES: DUBLIN CORPORATION
AND
ELECTRICAL TRADE UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Claim for compensation for loss of personal property during
working hours.
BACKGROUND:
2. This claim concerns a worker employed by the Corporation as an
apprentice electrician. The worker is based at the Corporation
depot in Marrowbore Lane, Dublin 8. On 1st May, 1987, when the
worker was working in the Cookstown waterworks reservoir, personal
clothing at the reservoir were stolen. The total value of the
clothing was approximately £190. The Union claimed that the
worker should be fully compensated by the Corporation for his
loss. The Corporation rejected the claim but offered to pay
ex-gratia compensation of £50. This was in accordance with a
scheme the Corporation introduced under which 2/3 of the value of
the loss, subject to a maximum of £50, may be paid as an ex-gratia
payment. This offer was not acceptable to the Union.
3. No agreement was reached through local negotiations and on 9th
December, 1987 the matter was referred to the conciliation service
of the Labour Court. A conciliation conference was held on 22nd
January, 1988 but no agreement was reached. On 16th February,
1988 the case was referred to the Court for investigation and
recommendation. A Labour Court hearing was held on 7th March,
1988.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Union's local shop steward took up the issue of the
worker's loss with the senior engineer of the Corporation's
electrical department. The senior engineer recommended that
the worker be compensated the amount of £175.75 and sent this
recommendation to the Personnel Department for sanction. Even
though this amount was less than the real loss to the worker
the Union viewed it as fair and just.
2. The worker is an apprentice and his wages are low. He had
borrowed the money to purchase the items which were stolen and
had just finished repaying the loan for same.
3. The refusal of the Corporation to allow a Rights
Commissioner to hear this case is an example of their lack of
humanity, as they surely know that a Rights Commissioner would
rule on the basis of natural justice. Already, the cost of
pursuing this case has far outreached that of the Union's
claim.
CORPORATION'S ARGUMENTS:
5. 1. The Corporation accepts no liability for loss or damage to
personal items belonging to its staff. It has been advised by
its Law agent that it has no legal liability. Accordingly the
Corporation does not accept liability for the claim of £190
made by the worker.
2. The Corporation has adopted an "ex-gratia" scheme under
which, provided the loss is not due to negligence or to lack
of reasonable foresight on the part of the claimant,
compensation at two-thirds of the estimated cost of the items
lost less depreciation, subject to a maximum of £50 may be
paid. There would be repercussive effects should the
Corporation exceed the £50 limit.
3. Due to its bad financial situation the Corporation could
not sustain additional expenditure on claims of this nature.
4. As the scheme of compensation is an "ex-gratia" scheme the
Corporation is under no obligation to circularise its terms to
every employee nor to apply its terms in any particular case.
5. The Corporation submits that there was a lack of
reasonable foresight on the part of the worker to have left
the keys of the lock of his motorcycle in unattended clothing.
RECOMMENDATION:
6. The Court accepts that the scheme operated by the Corporation
limits compensation to a maximum of £50 "ex-gratia", and this
should be paid.
However the Court also accepts that an expectation was created in
this instance that greater compensation would be paid and
recommends that a further ex-gratia payment of £50 be made in this
particular case.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court.
Evelyn Owens
___________________
18th March, 1988
T. O'M. / M. F. Deputy Chairman.