Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD89728 Case Number: LCR12684 Section / Act: S67 Parties: ROCHES STORES (BLACKROCK) - and - IRISH DISTRIBUTIVE AND ADMINISTRATIVE TRADE UNION |
Claim for compensation because of disturbance due to renovations, at the Company's Blackrock premises.
Recommendation:
6. Having regard to all the circumstances surrounding this case,
including the unusually extensive nature of the reconstruction,
the prolonged period over which it extended, the steps taken by
the company to minimise the inevitable problems and discomforts
stemming from the work and the co-operation of the staff in
maintaining the normal level of trading, the Court recommends
that, as an equitable resolution of this dispute, the Company pay
each of its full-time staff who was employed for the full period
of renovations a sum of #150 and pro-rata to part-time staff.
Division: CHAIRMAN Mr Brennan Mr O'Murchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD89728 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR12684
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 67
PARTIES: ROCHES STORES (BLACKROCK)
(Represented by the Federation of Irish Employers)
and
IRISH DISTRIBUTIVE AND ADMINISTRATIVE TRADE UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Claim for compensation because of disturbance due to
renovations, at the Company's Blackrock premises.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Company employs over 120 full-time staff together with a
number of part-time staff in its Blackrock branch. Because of
trading difficulties, it decided that a major investment within
this location was necessary. Between January, 1989 and November,
1989, the store undertook major renovations to build a shopping
centre on the site. These renovations were carried out in a
four-phase programme.
Phase 1:
The building of a new supermarket/food department beside the
existing building, within a five month period from the
commencement date of 1st January, 1989.
Phase 2:
The building of a hardware floor in the basement (which had been
unoccupied previously).
Phase 3:
The building of a shopping mall in the complex. This involved
departmental moves to accommodate the installation of four
escalators and two voids on the first floor.
Phase 4:
The extension of the front of the store to provide for shopping
units. (This work was carried out concurrently with Phase 3).
3. The Union on behalf of the workers concerned served a claim on
the Company for financial compensation, for having to work in
adverse conditions. The Company rejected the claim on grounds
that it had taken all possible precautions to ensure minimal
disruption both to staff and customers during its development
programme. Agreement was not reached at local level and the
matter was referred to the Conciliation Service of the Labour
Court. Conciliation conferences took place on 2nd October, 1989
and 9th October, 1989. No agreement was reached. The matter was
referred to the Court for investigation and recommendation. The
Court heard the case on 27th November, 1989.
UNIONS ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. During the reconstruction work and development of the
premises the workers had to endure dust, noise, congestion,
draughts, obnoxious odours, and physical disorganisation.
Heavy-duty drilling caused serious noise and dust levels which
in turn resulted in staff complaining of headaches, soreness
of the eyes, nasal and throat irritations.
2. Dust covered the area while the work was in progress and
merchandise had to be cleaned repeatedly and plastic coverings
had to be used in order to avoid stock deterioration.
3. The workers were expected to maintain their appearance
despite the disruption that surrounded them. Many of the
workers incurred extra expense by having to have uniforms
cleaned regularly at their own expense.
4. The workers' grievance is justified. In similar cases
previously the Labour Court awarded compensation in respect of
the inconvenience caused to staff by renovation work (LCR12270
and AD2689 refer).
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
5. 1. The Company has taken every possible precaution to
ensure minimal disruption during its development/expansion
programme.
2. The Company provided continuous employment for the staff
by not taking the decision to cease trading and no temporary
lay-offs were necessary during reconstruction. This
investment has improved the job security of the staff and
the turnover and profitability of the Company.
3. All staff were appraised of the construction work
details. They were advised of safety precautions that would
be undertaken and the development phases under construction
were discussed.
5. 4. The Company imported special equipment from the United
Kingdom, (unavailable in Ireland) to minimise noise levels and
did the heaviest and noisiest work outside of trading hours.
5. The restructuring has made the premises more modern and
has introduced a new era to trade within the area.
RECOMMENDATION:
6. Having regard to all the circumstances surrounding this case,
including the unusually extensive nature of the reconstruction,
the prolonged period over which it extended, the steps taken by
the company to minimise the inevitable problems and discomforts
stemming from the work and the co-operation of the staff in
maintaining the normal level of trading, the Court recommends
that, as an equitable resolution of this dispute, the Company pay
each of its full-time staff who was employed for the full period
of renovations a sum of #150 and pro-rata to part-time staff.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Heffernan
13th December, 1989 ----------------
M.N./U.S. Chairman