Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD90466 Case Number: LCR13112 Section / Act: S67 Parties: BROWN THOMAS AND COMPANY LIMITED - and - IRISH DISTRIBUTIVE AND ADMINISTRATIVE TRADE UNION |
Claim for a payment to compensate approximately 77 workers because of disturbance during renovations at the Company's Grafton Street premises.
Recommendation:
5. The Court, having considered the views oral and written of the
parties, including the action taken by the Company to minimise the
problems and discomfort of the staff during the building work, and
taking account of the co-operation of the staff during this period
recommends that the Company pay to each of the staff concerned the
sum of #100 and pro rata to part-time staff or any full-time staff
not employed during the full period of the work.
Division: MrMcGrath Mr Brennan Mr Rorke
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD90466 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR13112
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 67
PARTIES: BROWN THOMAS AND COMPANY LIMITED
(REPRESENTED BY THE FEDERATION OF IRISH EMPLOYERS)
and
IRISH DISTRIBUTIVE AND ADMINISTRATIVE TRADE UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Claim for a payment to compensate approximately 77 workers
because of disturbance during renovations at the Company's Grafton
Street premises.
BACKGROUND:
2. 1. In January, 1988, the Company announced a rationalisation
programme to avert closure of its Grafton Street store. One
element of the survival plan was the need to undertake
essential repair work on the rear of its premises. Plans and
bye-law approval for the renovations were finalised in March,
1989 and work on the premises commenced in April, 1989. The
work included some demolition and rebuilding of the back wall
of the store.
2. In July, 1989, the Union lodged a claim for the payment of
a disturbance compensation of #800 to each full-time worker,
with a pro-rata payment for each part-time worker. Following
local discussions the claim was referred to the conciliation
service of the Labour Court on 25th April, 1990. It was the
subject of a conciliation conference on 26th June, 1990. No
agreement was reached at the conciliation conference as the
Company maintained that the renovation work being carried out
did not justify any compensation payments. On 30th July,
1990, the Union requested a full Labour Court hearing. The
Company agreed and the Court investigated the dispute on 13th
November, 1990.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Company commenced major refurbishment of its Grafton
Street premises in April, 1989. The back wall of the store
was unsafe and had to be demolished and rebuilt. Canteen and
toilet facilities were modernised. The Company instructed the
architects and builders to minimise inconvenience but it was
impossible to carry out the work without causing disturbance
to workers. While the Company informed workers about the
refurbishment it did not indicate the level of disturbance
which would take place and it did not ensure a minimum level
of comfort for workers during the refurbishment period.
2. The dust level in the store was particularly bad during
the period of renovation. Workers complained of swallowing
dust. Expensive merchandise had to be cleaned repeatedly.
There was very loud noise in the store, especially during the
period when the back wall was removed. The store was quite
congested as temporary partition walls were erected. There
were continuous draughts especially at the Duke Lane end (back
wall) of the store. Workers complained of obnoxious odours
caused by the exposure of pipes following the removal of the
back wall. All complaints are confirmed in statements from
individual workers (statements from individual workers
supplied to the Court).
3. Workers are expected to maintain a high standard of
appearance. Their cleaning expenses during the period of
renovation increased considerably as merchandise had to be
dusted down and move repeatedly.
4. In June, 1989, the Company acknowledging that employees
had suffered a disturbance arranged a special sales evening
for workers and their families, as a gesture of appreciation.
The Company accepted that the sales event was not intended as
a response to the claim for disturbance compensation.
5. The Union indicated to the Company from an early stage
that the amounts of compensation payment being sought were
negotiable. However, the Union is satisfied that the claim is
justified. The Labour Court has in the past awarded
compensation for similar types of disturbance e.g. Switzers
and Arnotts of Grafton Street (AD26/89 L.C.R. 12270) and
Roches Stores of Blackrock (L.C.R. 12684).
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The refurbishment work was essential and carried out to
benefit the store. It represented a major investment in the
future of the Company. Prior to its commencement the
contractors were instructed to ensure that the work area was
completely sealed off from the main trading area of the store.
Dust proof partitions were erected on each floor. During
renovations the Company took all reasonable steps to avoid any
inconvenience to staff. Instructions were given to the
contractors to minimise dust and noise. The sealed off work
site was checked regularly to ensure that dust seepage was
kept to an absolute minimum. Strict safety standards were
enforced. Major demolition work took place outside of trading
hours. Weekly site meetings took place during which problems
arising were discussed and rectified. The Company accepts
that some dust was unavoidable during the major demolition
which occurred for relatively short periods during 29th - 30th
April on the ground floor and during 2nd - 5th June on the
lower ground floor.
2. Brown Thomas was not alone in being involved in
construction work at that time in 1989. Other retailers with
premises close by were carrying out major construction work
(details supplied to the Court). The work on these premises
together with the paving of Duke Street contributed to the
dust levels in the area.
3. The workers suffered no loss of earnings during the course
of refurbishment work. Sales were actually up 6.5% over the
period and this would be reflected in commission earnings.
4. Management was not made aware of any problems during the
course of the renovations and the Company was not advised of
any specific problems when the claim was first made at a
meeting with the Union on 14th July, 1989. As a result of the
refurbishment workers now enjoy significantly improved canteen
facilities. In addition new toilet facilities were installed
and the locker room was redecorated. Air conditioning units
were installed in the lower ground floor.
5. Two previous Labour Court investigations which are
relevant to this claim are L.C.R. 11787 and AD49/89. In
Labour Court Recommendation 11787 concerning Eason and Son 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 the
construction work." In Labour Court Decision AD49/89
concerning B.H.S. the Court upheld a Rights Commissioner's
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
workers.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. The Court, having considered the views oral and written of the
parties, including the action taken by the Company to minimise the
problems and discomfort of the staff during the building work, and
taking account of the co-operation of the staff during this period
recommends that the Company pay to each of the staff concerned the
sum of #100 and pro rata to part-time staff or any full-time staff
not employed during the full period of the work.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Tom McGrath
_______________________
10th December, 1990. Deputy Chairman
A.McG./J.C.