Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD88742 Case Number: LCR12128 Section / Act: S67 Parties: QUINNSWORTH - and - IRISH DISTRIBUTIVE AND ADMINISTRATIVE TRADE UNION |
Claim for relocation compensation.
Recommendation:
5. Having considered the submissions made by the parties, the
Court is of the view that the compensation paid by the Company was
reasonable and should be accepted by the claimants in full and
final settlement of their claim.
Division: Mr Fitzgerald Mr Shiel Mr Devine
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD88742 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR12128
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 67
PARTIES: QUINNSWORTH
and
IRISH DISTRIBUTIVE AND ADMINISTRATIVE TRADE UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Claim for relocation compensation.
BACKGROUND:
2. In 1966 the Company opened in Stillorgan Shopping Centre
trading within three separate units. These consisted of a house
and home unit, a supermarket and an off-licence. In 1983 the
Company acquired the lease on another premises in the centre and
converted it into a mainly dry goods supermarket. Shortly
afterwards the house and home unit was also transferred into the
new premises. The old supermarket was converted into a fresh
foods unit. At the time of the first transfer into the new
premises in 1983 the Company made a disturbance payment to all
workers in the Centre of: #65 nett for full-time workers; #30
nett for pro-rata workers; and #10 nett for part-timers. In 1987,
the Company decided to enlarge the size of the fresh foods unit
and to convert the enlarged premises into a supermarket with both
fresh foods and dry goods groceries. This extension involved the
construction of a new building and the re-location took place in
June, 1988. In September, 1987 the Union wrote to the Company
requesting a meeting to discuss the changes. Local level
discussions took place on 13th October, 1988 at which the Union
claimed disturbance compensation, this was rejected by the Company
on the basis that the compensation paid in 1983 covered all
similar future moves within the centre. The Union maintained that
this had been a once-off payment. In March, 1988 the Union served
strike notice on the Company following which further local level
discussions took place, subsequent to which the Company made an
offer on the basis that the Union would recommend it for
acceptance. The offer was for the payment of:
#50 nett to full-time workers;
#25 nett to pro-rata workers; and
#15 nett to part-time workers.
This offer was rejected by the members and on 12th April, 1988 the
matter was referred to the conciliation service of the Labour
Court. A conciliation conference was held on 11th May, 1988. In
June, 1988 it was agreed that the compensation offered by the
Company would be paid to the workers and that the matter would be
referred to the Labour Court, for its recommendation and which
recommendation would be accepted by the Union. On 3rd October,
1988 the matter was referred to the Labour Court and a Court
hearing took place on 27th October, 1988.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The compensation paid in 1983 was a once-off payment and
was not in respect of future re-location within the shopping
centre. The inconvenience experienced by the workers included
eight weeks of intense commuting between locations and three
to four weeks preparing the new area in dirty and noisy
conditions. The workers should be paid an adequate sum (based
on the amount paid in 1983 increased in line with inflation)
in compensation for the inconvenience suffered during the
period of the move.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The agreement made in 1983 was to cover all similar
situations in the future. The Company made these changes
which required a considerable investment in order to protect
the level of trade and thereby enhance job security and
increase employment. The Company experienced a considerable
loss of trade during the construction work, but there was no
lay-off or short-time working applied to workers and no loss
of earnings for full-time workers. Employment and earnings in
the centre have increased as a result of the Company's
investment in the new premises. There was no significant
inconvenience for the workers and in the circumstances, the
amounts already paid to the workers which was a considerable
cost to the Company, were very generous. The payments already
made should not be increased.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. Having considered the submissions made by the parties, the
Court is of the view that the compensation paid by the Company was
reasonable and should be accepted by the claimants in full and
final settlement of their claim.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Nicholas Fitzgerald
-------------------
18th November, 1988 Deputy Chairman.
U.M./J.C.