Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD89328 Case Number: AD8949 Section / Act: S13(9) Parties: BRITISH HOME STORES (DUBLIN) LIMITED - and - IRISH ADMINISTRATIVE AND DISTRIBUTIVE TRADE UNION |
Appeal by the Union against Rights Commissioner's Recommendation No. CW70/89 concerning a claim for compensation for inconvenience caused during renovations to the Company's O'Connell Street premises.
Recommendation:
6. Having considered the submissions from the parties, the Court
does not find grounds the change the Rights Commissioners's
Recommendation.
The Court so decides.
Division: CHAIRMAN Mr Shiel Mr Walsh
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD89328 APPEAL DECISION NO. AD4989
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969
SECTION 13(9)
PARTIES: BRITISH HOME STORES (DUBLIN) LIMITED
(Represented by the Federated Union of Employers
and
IRISH ADMINISTRATIVE AND DISTRIBUTIVE TRADE UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Appeal by the Union against Rights Commissioner's
Recommendation No. CW70/89 concerning a claim for compensation for
inconvenience caused during renovations to the Company's O'Connell
Street premises.
BACKGROUND:
2. Between July and October, 1988, the Company undertook major
renovations to its O'Connell Street premises in order to introduce
both Mothercare and Habitat products to BHS (Dublin) Limited (all
three companies are part of Storehouse Plc). The Union claim that
this work resulted in considerable inconvenience to staff,
especially those in the stockroom/basement area (noise, dust etc)
and on the 14th July it lodged a claim for compensation. The
claim was rejected. Direct discussions failed to resolve the
matter and it was referred to a Rights Commissioner for
investigation and recommendation.
3. Following an investigation on the 13th April, 1989, the Rights
Commissioner issued the following findings and recommendation on
the 1st May:-
"It seems to me that the construction work which took
place was to be ultimately to the benefit of the Store
and hence the staff. I accept that the Company
enforced very strict standards regarding the
maintenance of safety and the minimising of
inconvenience during the full period of reconstruction.
In the circumstances I do not believe that the staff
has established justification for extra payment despite
the inconvenience which was present.
I recommend that the Union accepts that no compensation
is merited in this case."
This recommendation was unacceptable to the Union which appealed
it to the Labour Court under Section 13(9) of the Industrial
Relations Act, 1969. A Court hearing was held on the 20th June,
1989.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The following is a brief summary of the inconveniences
and discomfort suffered by staff during the renovation
period:-
- Heavy-duty drilling caused serious noise and dust
levels which in turn resulted in staff complaining
of soreness of the eyes, headaches and general
nausea.
- The store elevator was out of order for most of the
month of August which caused considerable problems
for staff who had to make four or five trips a day
upstairs and back.
- Noise and dust levels were so bad in August that
supervisors complained to Management about the
difficulties encountered in taking and making
telephone calls. Sales staff found that the bells
at the various pay points, used to summon the
attention of Management, couldn't be heard.
- Problems arose as a result of the smell from the
adhesive used in carpet-laying. The carpet-laying,
in turn, meant that the staff co-operated in the
performance of duties normally undertaken by
porters when they helped with the removal of
clothes-racks when carpets were being laid and the
return of this equipment when the carpet-laying was
completed.
- The Company failed to inform the staff and Union of
the presence of asbestos during the renovation
work. While it would appear that the Company took
all reasonable precautions to protect the staff
from this hazard, no mention was made of an
asbestos risk until the Union approached Management
in this regard.
- As a result of the building contractors attempting
to clean the basement floor which was left in a
dangerously slippy condition, two staff members
fell. Accident report sheets have been filled out.
2. In previous similar cases the Court has awarded
compensation in respect of inconvenience caused to staff by
renovation work (AD2689 and LCR12270 refer). The claimants
cannot understand why workers in these cases can secure
compensation while they are expected to accept serious and
prolonged inconvenience without compensation of any kind.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
5. 1. The Company is of the view that the Rights Commissioner
was correct in his finding that there was "insufficient
justification for any extra payment to staff, despite the
inconvenience which was present." The Rights Commissioner
noted that the construction work was ultimately to the benefit
of the store and hence the staff, and he accepted that the
Company enforced very strict standards regarding the
maintenance of safety and the minimising of inconvenience
during the period of re-construction.
2. Staff were fully appraised of the details of the
building work, the progress of same, and the safety
precautions undertaken. Indeed on 20 July, 1988 a detailed
discussion took place with the Health & Safety Committee which
is composed of members elected by staff.
3. The Company took every possible step to minimise risk
and inconvenience to staff, customers and the general public
(details supplied to the Court). These measures involved
significant additional costs in terms of the building
programme, protective measures and additional security costs
bearing in mind that much of the work was carried out outside
of trading hours.
4. As is the case with any refurbishing programme requiring
structural alteration to buildings within the BHS
organisation, specifications are made on the requirements in
respect of building contractors. The documentation which was
submitted to both the Rights Commissioner and the Court
clearly demonstrates the extent to which safe working
practices were highlighted to ensure a healthy working
environment for the staff, customers and general public at all
times.
5. In a previous case (LCR11787 - Eason & Son Limited) the
Court accepted "that management took all reasonable steps with
the builders to lessen the inconvenience caused to the
workers. While inevitably there was some disturbance caused,
this was largely unavoidable given the nature of construction
work" and rejected the claim. Compensation is not justified
in this case and the Court is respectfully requested to
uphold the Rights Commissioner's recommendation.
DECISION:
6. Having considered the submissions from the parties, the Court
does not find grounds the change the Rights Commissioners's
Recommendation.
The Court so decides.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Heffernan
10th July, 1989 ---------------
D.H./U.S. Chairman