Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD9118 Case Number: AD9123 Section / Act: S13(9) Parties: AER LINGUS - and - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION |
Appeal by the Company against Rights Commissioner's recommendation No. ST 258/90 concerning a claim for disturbance compensation for 8 cleaners employed at Dublin Airport.
Recommendation:
5. The Court has fully considered the views expressed by the
parties in their written and oral submissions.
The Court concurs with the view that there is an urgent need for a
formal agreement on "disturbance" type claims.
Any such agreement should contain criteria which will enable the
parties to clearly distinguish between issues of severe disruption
and issues of temporary inconvenience.
In the Case before the Court it is considered the circumstances
appertaining would not under reasonable criteria be considered as
circumstances involving severe disruption.
Accordingly the Court upholds the appeal of the Company, rejects
the Rights Commissioner's recommendation and finds no grounds for
the payment of compensation.
The Court so decides.
Division: MrMcGrath Mr Keogh Mr Walsh
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD9118 APPEAL DECISION NO. AD2391
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 258/90 concerning a claim for disturbance
compensation for 8 cleaners employed at Dublin Airport.
BACKGROUND:
2. The workers concerned are responsible for cleaning an area
including toilets, duty and control offices, a catwalk between the
catering and personnel building, and two temporary portacabin
structures. In 1990, the Company carried out construction work in
the flight kitchen (the cleaners are not directly responsible for
this area). The Union claims that the construction work had an
adverse effect on the working conditions of workers in terms of
extra cleaning duties and difficult working conditions in their
area of responsibility. The Union made a claim for disturbance
compensation which was rejected by the Company. No agreement
could be 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
issued the following recommendation on 21st November, 1990:-
"RECOMMENDATION:
The claimants are not yet required to perform the agreed
contracted area of work. In addition they only worked 7% of
their time in the effected area. Consequently the claim for
#650 compensation is not well founded in my view. Neither
does a fair comparison with the successful claimants award
hold up for the same reasons.
In all the circumstances I recommend that the claimants
receive 10% of their original claim in full and final
settlement.
The Company 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 the construction work in the flight kitchen the
workers suffered adverse working conditions. In particular
they had to carry heavy duty cleaning equipment and refuse
sacks up and down stairs as the lift in the flight kitchen
was out of operation. The building work created extra dirt
and dust. Access with cleaning equipment was made difficult
due to building materials and rubble left around during
construction. The workers experienced an unacceptable level
of inconvenience which warrants compensation from the
Company.
2. The Company decided to appeal the recommendation because
of its failure to reach agreement with the Union on how
disturbance claims should be dealt with in the future. It is
unfair to victimise the cleaning staff because of the failure
to reach agreement. During 1990, the Rights Commissioner
dealt with (at least) three similar cases and in all of
these cases, the Company accepted and implemented the
proposed awards.
3. Claims for compensation for working in adverse working
conditions are a feature of Irish industrial life and the
Labour Court has issued a number of Recommendations which
upholds this view.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. While some "temporary inconvenience" may have occurred
during renovations the Company made every reasonable effort
to minimise disturbance. None of the main building work was
carried out during the evening shift worked by the cleaners.
The area where the building took place represents less than
10% of the total area to be cleaned. In his recommendation
the Rights Commissioner states that the cleaners only worked
7% of their time in the affected area and that the claim for
#650 is not well founded. The Company cannot accept that
employees who have had only minimal disruption should be
awarded compensation.
2. The Rights Commissioner's recommendation takes no
account of the financial crisis of the airline and the number
of claims of this nature which have been made. The Company
cannot afford to concede cost increasing claims for
compensation.
3. Due to the increasing number of disturbance claims the
Company has made proposals to the Union on a reasonable
method for 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 has fully considered the views expressed by the
parties in their written and oral submissions.
The Court concurs with the view that there is an urgent need for a
formal agreement on "disturbance" type claims.
Any such agreement should contain criteria which will enable the
parties to clearly distinguish between issues of severe disruption
and issues of temporary inconvenience.
In the Case before the Court it is considered the circumstances
appertaining would not under reasonable criteria be considered as
circumstances involving severe disruption.
Accordingly the Court upholds the appeal of the Company, rejects
the Rights Commissioner's recommendation and finds no grounds for
the payment of compensation.
The Court so decides.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
25th March, 1991 Tom McGrath
A.S./M.O'C. _______________
Deputy Chairman