Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD9115 Case Number: AD9121 Section / Act: S13(9) Parties: AER LINGUS - and - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION |
Appeal by the Company against Rights Commissioner's recommendation No. ST 320/90 concerning a claim for disturbance compensation for clerical staff in the operation control area at Dublin Airport.
Recommendation:
5. The Court takes the view that "disturbance" type claims
should only be considered where these arise as a consequence of
continuous and severe disruption over a period of time.
Given the present financial state of the Company the Court agrees
with the view of the Rights Commissioner that there is a need for
a formal agreement on "disturbance" type claims.
The Court given the circumstances of the case and the level of
inconvenience and disruption experienced by the staff concerned
considers that the workers concerned should be paid the sum of
#100 in settlement of their claim.
The Court so decides.
Division: MrMcGrath Mr Keogh Mr Walsh
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD9115 APPEAL DECISION NO. AD2191
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 No. ST 320/90 concerning a claim for disturbance
compensation for clerical staff in the operation control area at
Dublin Airport.
BACKGROUND:
2. The operation control area comprises pilot flight
preparation, operations planning, aeronautical information
service, manuals section and operation control duty managers.
This area was last refurbished in 1983 and since that time there
has been an increase of crew throughput of over 100%. The Company
decided that the area needed to be renovated and extended.
Renovation work began in May 1990 and was finished by the end of
the year. The Company also decided to upgrade facilities and
equipment in the area. As the particular section is staffed on a
24 hour shift basis there was always staff on duty during
renovation work. The Union made a claim for compensation for
clerical staff in respect of disturbance caused during the
refurbishment and renovation. The Company rejected the claim. No
agreement was reached at local level discussions and the matter
was referred to a Rights Commissioner for investigation. The
Rights Commissioner investigated the matter on 25th October, 1990
and 14th September, 1990. He issued the following recommendation
on 20th November, 1990:-
"RECOMMENDATION
I have given this claim some considerable time and thought.
I accept that the Company has had to face a number of claims
in circumstances where the host Company Aer Rianta, has in
the first place initiated such works. It was not possible
to move the claimants completely out of the area during the
work in question and they did suffer a fair degree of
disruption and inconvenience during their working hours and
over which they could not exercise any control with a view
to amelioration.
In all these circumstances, I recommend that each claimant
receives #250 in full and final settlement of all their
claims".
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 on 19th February, 1991.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. During renovation work the staff concerned suffered from
adverse working conditions. The work involved the removal of
solid walls and partitions, replacement of ceilings and the
construction of new fixed position furniture. Staff had to
wear overcoats at times to keep warm, especially at night.
The Rights Commissioner actually saw the degree of
disturbance involved and recommended compensation
accordingly.
2. The reconstruction work was necessary so as to provide
for the introduction of a computerised Local Area Networks
System (L.A.N.), the primary benefit of which, according to a
Company manual, is the cost saving achieved by sharing system
resources. According to the same document, the first step in
building a network is to design the overall physical
architecture. There is therefore a significant cost benefit
to the Company by the introduction of L.A.N.
3. The main reason for the Company not paying the
compensation awarded by the Rights Commissioner appears to be
their failure to reach agreement with the Union on how future
such claims should be dealt with. It is unfair to exclude
the staff concerned because of this. Other categories of
staff have already been paid compensation for a similar
degree of disturbance.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. While carrying out the renovation and refurbishment work
in operations control every effort was made to minimise the
inconvenience. Consequently the employees may have suffered
temporary inconvenience but any such inconvenience is
compensated for by their improved working conditions.
2. Operations control is an area used by all pilots. If
the claim made by the clerical staff in this area was
conceded there could be a knock on claim on behalf of pilots.
3. The Rights Commissioner's recommendation takes no
account of the financial crisis of the Company and the number
of claims of this nature which have been made. The Company
cannot afford to concede cost increasing claims for
compensation.
4. Due to the increasing number of disturbance claims the
Company has made proposals to the Union for a reasonable
method of dealing with claims where continuous severe
disruption occurs over a long period. No agreement has been
reached on these proposals and the Company cannot concede
disturbance claims until a sensible agreed policy on such
claims is put in place.
DECISION:
5. The Court takes the view that "disturbance" type claims
should only be considered where these arise as a consequence of
continuous and severe disruption over a period of time.
Given the present financial state of the Company the Court agrees
with the view of the Rights Commissioner that there is a need for
a formal agreement on "disturbance" type claims.
The Court given the circumstances of the case and the level of
inconvenience and disruption experienced by the staff concerned
considers that the workers concerned should be paid the sum of
#100 in settlement of their claim.
The Court so decides.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
20th March, 1991 Tom McGrath
A.S./M.O'C. _______________
Deputy Chairman