Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD9117 Case Number: AD9118 Section / Act: S13(9) Parties: AER LINGUS - and - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION |
Appeal by the Company against Rights Commissioner's recommendation ST338/90 concerning a claim by the Union for disturbance compensation for 29 general operatives at Cork Airport.
Recommendation:
5. The Court, having fully considered all of the aspects of this
case as raised by the parties in their oral and written
submissions finds that the move imposed on the staff concerned
resulted in minimal inconvenience.
In all the circumstances the Court finds no grounds for the
payment of compensation.
Accordingly the Court finds in favour of the Company and upholds
the appeal against the Rights Commissioner's recommendation.
The Court so decides.
Division: MrMcGrath Mr Keogh Mr Walsh
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD9117 APPEAL DECISION NO. AD1891
THE LABOUR COURT
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 13(9), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969
PARTIES: AER LINGUS
AND
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Appeal by the Company against Rights Commissioner's
recommendation ST338/90 concerning a claim by the Union for
disturbance compensation for 29 general operatives at Cork
Airport.
BACKGROUND:
2. Due to Aer Rianta's requirement to carry out construction
work at the existing airport terminal building, the Company (a
tenant of the building) was required to move staff to alternative
accommodation. The rest room/canteen facilities used by the
workers concerned with the appeal were transferred to a
prefabricated type building some distance away from the terminal
building. The Union claimed compensation for disturbance arising
from the transfer. The Company rejected the claim. No agreement
was reached at local level discussions and the matter was referred
to a Rights Commissioner who investigated the dispute on 27th
September, 1990 and 9th November, 1990. The following
recommendation issued on 23rd November, 1990:-
"RECOMMENDATION:
The investigation included a visit to the site and a formal
session where written presentations were made by the
parties. The new accommodation is quite good judged by
standards I have witnessed at Dublin Airport. There is an
element of isolation involved but that can also be an
advantage in rest room terms. There is additional internal
movement and travel as a result of the move but transport is
provided. I do not think on balance that a very strong case
exists for compensation under these headings. However the
manner in which the Company was forced to act by the
Landlord left a lot to be desired. Ultimata are not the
coinage which has given Cork Airport its good labour
relations. In these circumstances combined with the minimal
disruption involved I recommend that each claimant receives
#100 in compensation in full and final settlement of their
claims as presented".
The Company on 20th December, 1990 appealed the recommendation to
the Labour Court under Section 13(9) of the Industrial Relations
Act, 1969. The Court heard the appeal in Cork on
12th February, 1991.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The workers concerned were obliged to move their rest
room facility from a permanent secure location in the
terminal building to a portacabin on a site at the end of a
runway. Their work involves loading/discharging cargo,
cleaning etc. and their base of operation is at the terminal
building. The portacabin site is a considerable distance
from their base of operation and can cause undue hardship in
bad weather when the need for a change of clothing arises.
The new site is inconvenient as a rest room and is distant
from previous facilities such as the restaurant and shops.
2. Disturbance payments are a well established practice. A
number of Labour Court and Rights Commissioners'
recommendations recognise the justice of such claims. The
workers moved to the new location on the understanding that
the dispute, if not resolved, would be put to a third party.
The Union reluctantly accepted the very small amount
recommended by the Rights Commissioner. The Company has
abused the goodwill and co-operation of the workers by
appealing the Rights Commissioner's recommendation.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. While some "temporary inconvenience" may have occurred
during renovation, the Company made every reasonable effort
to minimise disturbance. The Company relocated over a
week-end and paid overtime to the workers concerned.
Consultations with staff took place and it was agreed that
they would move to the new location.
2. In his recommendation the Rights Commissioner states
that the disruption involved was minimal. The Company cannot
accept that workers who have had only minimal disruption
should be awarded compensation.
3. It is the Company's policy to reject claims for
compensation which arise as a result of necessary
maintenance, refurbishment, renovation or expansion work. In
the vast majority of cases construction work of this nature
improves and develops the work place, which is mutually
beneficial to both employer and employee. Temporary
inconvenience caused while work is being carried out should
not give rise to disturbance compensation claims.
4. The Company has made proposals, by letter dated 19th
October, 1990 on a reasonable method for dealing with
disturbance compensation claims. The proposals are based on
the fact that in most cases where work is carried out it only
leads to temporary inconvenience and therefore no claim is
justified. The Company proposed that agreement be reached on
a new method of dealing with the small number of cases where
continuous servere disruption occurred over a long period.
These proposals were not acceptable to the Union and no
agreement was reached in subsequent negotiations. The
Company will not concede any further claims for disturbance
compensation until there is an agreed sensible policy on the
matter.
5. The Company is in a unique position in relation to
claims for compensation for disruption in the workplace.
Other companies, including semi-state companies, can carry
out renovations/construction work without incurring
compensatory claims from their employees. The Company cannot
and will not make alterations and improvements to its
premises if claims of this type continue.
6. The Rights Commissioner's recommendation takes no
account of the very serious financial problems of the Company
which are well known. The Company cannot afford to concede
cost increasing claims for compensation.
DECISION:
5. The Court, having fully considered all of the aspects of this
case as raised by the parties in their oral and written
submissions finds that the move imposed on the staff concerned
resulted in minimal inconvenience.
In all the circumstances the Court finds no grounds for the
payment of compensation.
Accordingly the Court finds in favour of the Company and upholds
the appeal against the Rights Commissioner's recommendation.
The Court so decides.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
12th March, 1991 Tom McGrath
A.S./M.O'C. _______________
Deputy Chairman