Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD88577 Case Number: LCR12270 Section / Act: S67 Parties: ARNOTT & COMPANY LIMITED - and - IRISH DISTRIBUTIVE AND ADMINISTRATIVE TRADE UNION |
Claim on behalf of 45 workers, for disturbance and loss of commission.
Recommendation:
5. The Court having considered the submissions from both parties
and the statistical information submitted in support of the claim
recommends that the Company increase its offer of compensation
from #125 and #75 to #200 and #125. These amounts are in full
settlement of the claim for disturbance and loss of commission.
Division: Ms Owens Mr Heffernan Mr O'Murchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD88577 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR12270
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 67
PARTIES: ARNOTT & COMPANY LIMITED
and
IRISH DISTRIBUTIVE AND ADMINISTRATIVE TRADE UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Claim on behalf of 45 workers, for disturbance and loss of
commission.
BACKGROUND:
2. From February to June, 1988 major renovation work took place
at the Company's Grafton Street branch. Because of the extent of
the noise and inconvenience caused to the staff during these
renovations the Union lodged a claim for #600 per person for the
workers concerned. This figure was reduced to #250 per person in
local discussions. The Company offered gift vouchers to the value
of #125 to some employees and #75 to other employees less
affected. The Union rejected the Company's offer and as no
agreement could be reached in local discussions the dispute was
referred to the conciliation service of the Labour Court on the
29th June, 1988. A conciliation conference was held on the 20th
July, 1988 but no agreement was reached. The dispute was referred
to the Labour Court for investigation and recommendation on the
21st July, 1988. A Court hearing took place on the 1st September,
1988. The hearing was adjourned to give the parties the
opportunity to further discuss issues in relation to clarification
of the number of employees, and the loss of commission element
involved in the claim. This was done at a further conciliation
conference, held on the 6th September, 1988, but no agreement was
reached, and the matter was referred back to the Court on the 9th
December, 1988. A resumed Court hearing took place on the 19th
January, 1989.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. When renovations were first undertaken at the store staff
did not complain about the work, however the level of noise,
odours and dust became unbearable. Merchandise had to be
cleaned repeatedly, and left in plastic bags to avoid
deterioration. There was continuous noise from hammers,
drills, and the movement of building materials. The noise
level in the store was exacerbated by the removal of the front
window which admitted noise from building work being
undertaken on the street outside. Because of the numbers of
workmen, building materials and temporary structures there was
severe congestion on the shop floor. There was also a
considerable draught running through the store. During the
course of renovations approximately 100 plastic bags of
sewage, were removed from the basement of the store, rats were
also seen in the store by staff. These factors caused
considerable physical disorganisation for the period of the
renovation work.
2. The Company has been reluctant to discuss the impact of
the renovations on the workers' commission earnings and have
stated that losses in this area were impossible to quantify.
However, it must be noted that the employees concerned did
suffer a loss of commission during the period of renovation
(details of commission earnings for the period 22nd February,
1988 to 9th June, 1988, and for the corresponding period in
1987 have been supplied to the Court).
3. Employees are expected by the Company to dress smartly and
cleanly for their work as sales assistants. While renovation
work was in progress in the store their working clothes
deteriorated greatly because of the excessive dust. Extra
cleaning was required and some suits had to be discarded
permanently.
4. The Company has acknowledged that the workers suffered
inconvenience during the renovation of the store and that they
should be compensated. The Company has also stated that they
did not envisage the extent of the disturbance. Had the Union
known beforehand how long the renovations would take they
would have requested that the store be closed for a period in
order that the work be completed. This was the case in
another store in the area, which closed for two weeks during
renovations.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Company suffered serious trading losses during 1987
which could not be sustained. Consequently a decision was
taken to re-vamp the store starting in February, 1988. The
work consisted of dividing the building in two and operating
as a smaller unit with the "freed" space being let to another
retailer. The cost of the renovations amounted to over
#300,000 and was essential to secure the future of the store.
For short periods, during the whole process which spanned four
months, the level of disruption and inconvenience exceeded
what might normally be encountered during this process of
change. Management decided to continue trading during this
period rather than close the store as it was considered
unnecessary to do so and revenue was seriously down on the
previous year's trading.
2. During the course of this work management held a number of
progress meetings with staff in the store. While there were
general comments made about the inconvenience there was no
complaint made either, through the House Committee, the
Union, or the Management structure, that this was a serious
problem warranting immediate attention. The only exception to
this was when a Union official made a complaint to Management
on the 29th April, 1988. This was a particularly noisy day
and work was ceased immediately following the phone call.
Unfortunately at the same time as the store renovations were
in progress, the paving of Grafton Street by Dublin
Corporation aggravated the problem in terms of dust, noise and
access to the store. The matter was dealt with as a formal
issue for the first time on May, 17th 1988.
3. The Company recognised the reality that employees were
co-operative and patient during a difficult time. The level
of disruption exceeded what could normally be expected as part
of department store activity on approximately six days.
Because of this the Company believe that an adequate level of
compensation was offered firstly #100 per worker and #50 to
those less affected. This offer was rejected by the Union.
The offer was increased to #125 and #75 and was again
rejected. To the Company's knowledge there was no vote by
staff members on the first offer, and the second offer was
rejected by a show of hands at a staff meeting. The Company
has opposed the level of payment and the extent of it demanded
by the Union and feel that not all members of staff were
equally disturbed and consequently the staggered approach is
more equitable in its view. The inconvenience caused to many
employees on the upper floors was minimal and some staff were
not affected. The compensation offered was largely in
response to the Union request to compensate everyone. The
Company's offer should be accepted as a fair and reasonable
settlement.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. The Court having considered the submissions from both parties
and the statistical information submitted in support of the claim
recommends that the Company increase its offer of compensation
from #125 and #75 to #200 and #125. These amounts are in full
settlement of the claim for disturbance and loss of commission.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Evelyn Owens
________________________
10th February, 1989 Deputy Chairman.
T.O'D./J.C.