Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD90533 Case Number: LCR13160 Section / Act: S67 Parties: AER RIANTA - and - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION |
Claim by the union on behalf of approximately 40 commercial assistants in the duty free areas for compensation following the refurbishment of the Duty Free Shop.
Recommendation:
5. While acknowledging the co-operation given by the staff, the
Court considers that the refurbishment was undertaken to protect
the business for the company and as a direct consequence to
protect employment. The Court regards such change as essential
from time to time in the type of business involved and therefore
considers occasional dislocation of physical working conditions
for staff as an inherent part of the job. In the circumstances
the Court does not find exceptional grounds on which it could
recommend compensation.
Division: CHAIRMAN Mr Collins Mr Walsh
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD90533 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR13160
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 67
PARTIES: AER RIANTA
and
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Claim by the union on behalf of approximately 40 commercial
assistants in the duty free areas for compensation following the
refurbishment of the Duty Free Shop.
BACKGROUND:
2. In response to commerical trends a number of renovations have
been carried out in the Shannon Airport Terminal Building,
including the refurbishment of the Duty Free Shop. The Company
decided to carry out the refurbishment of the Duty Free Shop
during the valley business period and to allocate the full floor
space to the outside contractor to enable the project to be
completed without delay. The Company decided to maintain a
limited shopping service which was available from an existing
"Night Shop" which was expanded to cater for the increased range
of merchandise. The refurbishment work commenced in February,
1990, and was completed in May, 1990. Staff who did not wish to
work during the refurbishment were given "Winter Leave" with half
pay. The Union claimed that some form of compensation be paid to
the staff in recognition of all the effort they put in and for the
disturbance and inconvenience suffered. The claim was rejected by
the Company and on 9th July, 1990, the matter was referred to the
conciliation service of the Labour Court. No agreement was
reached at a conciliation conference held on 16th August, 1990,
and the matter was referred to the Labour Court on 31st August,
1990, for investigation and recommendation. The Court
investigated the dispute on 21st November, 1990.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. A lot of effort, above and beyond normal duty, was put
into the operating of the smaller Duty Free Shop and in
keeping customers happy. When the main shop closed about 15
staff went on "Winter Leave" and the remaining 40 staff
continued to work in very difficult circumstances. There was
no air conditioning and the heat was overpowering. Welding
was taking place with all the attendant discomforts. At times
staff could barely see with the clouds of dust created.
2. The staff also co-operated with the movement of stock
and fittings when the new immigration clearance area was set
up. A major co-operative effort was delivered by staff
before, during and after the refurbishment. There were
numerous problems arising from customer complaints. The cash
make up office was closed and this caused serious difficulties
with cash make up being done wherever space could be found.
3. 3. As a result of the closure for 4 months there will be a
shortfall in revenue with a resulting reduction in the staff
commission scheme. It is unlikely that the executive bonus
scheme will be affected in any way. Money seemed to be no
object in refurbishing the shop. Approximately #1m was spent.
The official opening cost #50,000 and #17,000 was raised from
the sale of fittings. Surely with all this money around,
something could have been offered to the staff who worked
under dificult circumstances during the refurbishment.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. It is essential that the interior of the premises,
fixtures and fittings are upgraded in response to worldwide
commercial trends and to meet the expectations of the
customers. To ignore commercial trends and customer needs
would result in the downgrading of the Duty Free Shop at
Shannon and the consequent loss of both revenue and
employment. Major physical changes will be required in line
with the proposed deregulation of the European Market from the
end of 1992.
2. Buildings at the airport require constant maintenance
and from time-to-time major renovations and refurbishing.
Only recently the two main administration buildings were
"gutted" to facilitate a complete overhaul. These projects
were completed over a 5/6 month period during the winter of
1989/90 and were of considerable inconvenience to the staff
occupying these buildings. Regular staff inconvenience is a
feature of maintenance work and renovations throughout the
Catering Division. In all these cases no payments were made
to staff for any inconvenience or disturbance caused.
However, the finished work has greatly enhanced the working
environment of the staff concerned.
3. There have been a number of occasions when payments were
made to compensate staff at Shannon in respect of disturbance.
Notably, payment to members of the Airport Police Fire Service
on "the recommendation of a Rights Commissioner" in the
context of an exceptional overrun (4 months) during the worst
weather period of the year" and payment in 1988 by the same
Rights Commissioner to Stores Staff" who suffered 17 moves
since 1975" and "that they accept this continuing disruption
as part of the normal stores operation".
4. The staff concerned enjoy an attractive basic wage,
commission and generous privileges in relation to sick leave
etc.
4. 5. The Company must have the flexibility and employee
support to develop and respond to commercial needs if the Duty
Free Shop is to be maintained as a direct activity. The
capital expenditure on the refurbishment was considerable and
was expected to generate sufficient additional revenue to
justify the expenditure. However, the trading situation for
the current year and the near future, is disappointing, due in
part to the weakness of the U.S. dollar.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. While acknowledging the co-operation given by the staff, the
Court considers that the refurbishment was undertaken to protect
the business for the company and as a direct consequence to
protect employment. The Court regards such change as essential
from time to time in the type of business involved and therefore
considers occasional dislocation of physical working conditions
for staff as an inherent part of the job. In the circumstances
the Court does not find exceptional grounds on which it could
recommend compensation.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Heffernan
25th March, 1991 -----------------
B O'N/U.S. Chairman