Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD89322 Case Number: AD8950 Section / Act: S13(9) Parties: PENNY'S LIMITED - and - IRISH DISTRIBUTIVE AND ADMINISTRATIVE TRADE UNION |
Appeal by the Union against Rights Commissioner's recommendation No. CW49/89, concerning loss and inconvenience to 12 workers due to renovations to the store.
Recommendation:
" Findings
For whatever reasons it seems that there was
insufficient advance consultation, discussion, and
negotiation regarding the closure of the branch. I
am mindful that the Company tried to match the
individuals personal location with their proposed
transfer in view of different branch needs. I do not
consider (despite the evidence produced at the
hearing) that the inconvenience merits any
compensation during the 7 days behind closed doors.
RECOMMENDATION
I recommend that the Company offers and the Union
accepts the full cost of additional transport (if
any) to the 4 workers who accepted transfer."
The Rights Commissioner's recommendation was rejected by the Union
who appealed it, on 4th May, 1989, to the Labour Court under
Section 13(9) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969. The Court
heard the appeal on 19th June, 1989.
UNIONS' ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. Most of those laid-off would have been seriously
inconvenienced by the distances they would have had to travel
if re-located, e.g. from Artane to Dun Laoghaire, Navan Road
to Dundrum or North Strand to Rathfarnham. Some were offered
transfers to the Mary Street branch. Four workers accepted
the transfer to Mary Street, the remainder opted for lay-off
because of the inconvenience of re-location.
2. If all the workers were transferred to the most convenient
location, Artane, it would have cost the Company the same
amount in wages as if they had been transferred to other
locations. The Company has admitted that extra staff were not
needed in the other locations, therefore, the transfers were
presumably with a view to absorbing staff who were surplus to
requirements. Given that such was the case, the Union cannot
understand why some staff were required to travel much further
than others.
3. The Union contends that the re-location proposals were
made sufficiently unattractive so that staff would in fact opt
for lay-off. There was no financial saving for the Company
in transferring workers to any particular location and there
was no reason to disperse the workers all over Dublin.
4. When the staff returned to work on 21st September, 1988,
they had to put up with great inconvenience whilst the
refurbishment was completed. This inconvenience included high
noise levels caused by drilling, hammering, etc..., power
cuts, draughts from open doors and workmen walking on canteen
tables. The Union contends that compensation should be paid
for the loss during lay-off and the inconvenience suffered
upon returning to work.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The purpose of the refurbishment was to provide for the
future of the store and consequently the security of
employment of its staff.
2. All staff were offered alternative employment in other
branches. Every effort was made by the Company to ensure that
transfer was to the most convenient store possible in terms of
travelling in order to minimise any inconvenience. The
Company also offered to pay 50% of any additional travelling
costs occurring during the period of re-location.
3. When the staff returned to the store they were engaged in
stocking for 7 days. This is a normal part of their duties.
The major refurbishment work had been completed prior to this.
4. The Union sought that 8 of the 12 workers be laid-off
rather than be transferred to alternative branches. The
Company acceded to this request, therefore, any loss of
earnings incurred is a consequence of their own request. The
Company is in no way liable.
DECISION:
5. The Court, having considered the submissions from both
parties, is of the view that the recommendation of the Rights
Commissioner is not unreasonable in the circumstances and
accordingly the Court upholds the Rights Commissioner's
recommendation and rejects the appeal.
The Court so decides.
Division: Ms Owens Mr McHenry Mr Devine
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD89322 APPEAL DECISION NO. AD5089
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969
SECTION 13(9)
PARTIES: PENNY'S LIMITED
AND
IRISH DISTRIBUTIVE AND ADMINISTRATIVE TRADE UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Appeal by the Union against Rights Commissioner's
recommendation No. CW49/89, concerning loss and inconvenience to
12 workers due to renovations to the store.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Company, on 12th July, 1988, informed the Union that the
store would temporarily cease trading for refurbishment purposes,
from 12th August, 1988, to 30th September, 1988. As the Company
was unable to accommodate the staff at the store for 27 working
days during the refurbishment, an undertaking was given that staff
would be re-located for the duration and 50% of the cost of
additional transport, where this arose, would be paid by the
Company. Only 4 of the staff accepted re-location and the
remainder were laid-off. The Union maintains that those laid-off
would have been seriously inconvenienced by the distances they
would have had to travel to alternative jobs in other branches.
The Union claimed compensation varying from #57 to #388 in respect
of the loss each worker suffered. Upon return to work there was
further inconvenience to all 12 workers for a period of 7 days
while the refurbishment was being completed. The Union believes
this inconvenience and disturbance merits a payment of #300 for
full-time workers and pro-rata for others. The claims were
rejected by the Company. The matter was referred to a Rights
Commissioner for investigation and recommendation. On 13th April,
1989, the Rights Commissioner issued the following findings and
recommendation:-
" Findings
For whatever reasons it seems that there was
insufficient advance consultation, discussion, and
negotiation regarding the closure of the branch. I
am mindful that the Company tried to match the
individuals personal location with their proposed
transfer in view of different branch needs. I do not
consider (despite the evidence produced at the
hearing) that the inconvenience merits any
compensation during the 7 days behind closed doors.
RECOMMENDATION
I recommend that the Company offers and the Union
accepts the full cost of additional transport (if
any) to the 4 workers who accepted transfer."
The Rights Commissioner's recommendation was rejected by the Union
who appealed it, on 4th May, 1989, to the Labour Court under
Section 13(9) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969. The Court
heard the appeal on 19th June, 1989.
UNIONS' ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. Most of those laid-off would have been seriously
inconvenienced by the distances they would have had to travel
if re-located, e.g. from Artane to Dun Laoghaire, Navan Road
to Dundrum or North Strand to Rathfarnham. Some were offered
transfers to the Mary Street branch. Four workers accepted
the transfer to Mary Street, the remainder opted for lay-off
because of the inconvenience of re-location.
2. If all the workers were transferred to the most convenient
location, Artane, it would have cost the Company the same
amount in wages as if they had been transferred to other
locations. The Company has admitted that extra staff were not
needed in the other locations, therefore, the transfers were
presumably with a view to absorbing staff who were surplus to
requirements. Given that such was the case, the Union cannot
understand why some staff were required to travel much further
than others.
3. The Union contends that the re-location proposals were
made sufficiently unattractive so that staff would in fact opt
for lay-off. There was no financial saving for the Company
in transferring workers to any particular location and there
was no reason to disperse the workers all over Dublin.
4. When the staff returned to work on 21st September, 1988,
they had to put up with great inconvenience whilst the
refurbishment was completed. This inconvenience included high
noise levels caused by drilling, hammering, etc..., power
cuts, draughts from open doors and workmen walking on canteen
tables. The Union contends that compensation should be paid
for the loss during lay-off and the inconvenience suffered
upon returning to work.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The purpose of the refurbishment was to provide for the
future of the store and consequently the security of
employment of its staff.
2. All staff were offered alternative employment in other
branches. Every effort was made by the Company to ensure that
transfer was to the most convenient store possible in terms of
travelling in order to minimise any inconvenience. The
Company also offered to pay 50% of any additional travelling
costs occurring during the period of re-location.
3. When the staff returned to the store they were engaged in
stocking for 7 days. This is a normal part of their duties.
The major refurbishment work had been completed prior to this.
4. The Union sought that 8 of the 12 workers be laid-off
rather than be transferred to alternative branches. The
Company acceded to this request, therefore, any loss of
earnings incurred is a consequence of their own request. The
Company is in no way liable.
DECISION:
5. The Court, having considered the submissions from both
parties, is of the view that the recommendation of the Rights
Commissioner is not unreasonable in the circumstances and
accordingly the Court upholds the Rights Commissioner's
recommendation and rejects the appeal.
The Court so decides.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court,
Evelyn Owens
___19th___July,___1989. ___________________
B. O'N. / M. F. Deputy Chairman