Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD9114 Case Number: AD9140 Section / Act: S13(9) Parties: AER LINGUS - and - AMALGAMATED ENGINEERING UNION/ELECTRICAL TRADE UNION/;NATIONAL ENGINEERING AND ELECTRICAL TRADE UNION/;ELECTRICAL ENGINEERING AND PLUMBING TRADE UNION |
Appeal by the Company against Rights Commissioner's Recommendation No. ST352/90 concerning a claim for disturbance in respect of 11 craftworkers during the renovation of the catering Department.
Recommendation:
6. The Court having considered the written and oral submissions
of the parties is of the view that compensation should only be
given where the effects of construction work is continuous and
severe in nature.
In all the circumstances of this case the Court believes that the
claim does not meet this criterion and upholds the Company's
appeal.
The Court would endorse the statements in other recommendations
in relation to the parties reaching an agreement on "disturbance"
type claims.
Division: Ms Owens Mr Keogh Mr Walsh
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD9114 APPEAL DECISION NO. AD4091
THE LABOUR COURT
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 13(9), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT 1969
PARTIES: AER LINGUS
AND
AMALGAMATED ENGINEERING UNION/ELECTRICAL TRADE UNION/
NATIONAL ENGINEERING AND ELECTRICAL TRADE UNION/
ELECTRICAL ENGINEERING AND PLUMBING TRADE UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Appeal by the Company against Rights Commissioner's
Recommendation No. ST352/90 concerning a claim for disturbance in
respect of 11 craftworkers during the renovation of the catering
Department.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Company embarked on a programme of extending the catering
facilities at Dublin Airport (details supplied to the Court). This
means that catering currently supplied on a contract basis at
outstations such as London's Heathrow and Gatwick airports will
from this summer be handled at Dublin by the Company itself. The
work has been ongoing for many months and is not yet completed.
3. The workers concerned are employed in the maintenance service
section. The Unions, in June 1990, served a claim for
compensation because of the disturbance and inconvenience caused
to the workers concerned during the refurbishment of the flight
kitchen area. The claim was rejected by the Company and referred
to the Rights Commissioners service for investigation and
recommendation. A Rights Commissioner's hearing took place on 12
October, 1990 and the following recommendation issued on 21st
November, 1990.
"RECOMMENDATION
During the course of investigating a previous claim in my
private capacity, I had the opportunity to see the working
conditions at first hand. It was a major and long lasting
construction job, and some degree of inconvenience and
disruption to normal working was experienced although
maintenance craftsmen would normally experience some of the
effects during the course of their work. Never-the-less most
of craftsmen were inconvenienced enough to warrant various
degrees of compensation.
Accordingly, I recommend that those who spent 100% of their
time in the location should receive #200 compensation. Those
with 50% of their time spent there should receive #150 and
those with at least 25% should receive #100 each.
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 25th April, 1991.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The work which was carried out was of a very essential
nature if the Company's catering was to remain a viable
operation. In addition the introduction of new equipment
gives the workers concerned the potential to improve their
earnings through increased productivity payments. Their role
has also been enhanced by the provision of extra training.
2. The work of the workers concerned was in the main
carried out in a workshop which is located on the ground
floor and not on the first floor level where most of the
building etc. was done. In addition a considerable amount
their work was carried out at night when no building work was
in progress thus increasing overtime payments. It is the
Company's view that no more than slight inconvenience was
suffered and that the improved conditions (details supplied
to the Court) more than compensate for this. The Rights
Commissioner in his recommendation recognised that
maintenance craftsmen would normally experience some of the
effects in the course of their work.
3. The Rights Commissioner's Recommendation takes no
account of the financial crisis of the airline (details
supplied to the Court) and the number of claims of this
nature which have been made. The Company cannot afford to
concede cost increasing claims for compensation. The
Company's position is unique in that other companies
including semi-state companies, can carry out such activities
without incurring compensatory claims from their employees.
Since so may claims of this kind were made in 1990 the
Company has been seeking a reasonable method of dealing with
such claims, based on the fact that in most cases where work
is carried out,it is only leads to temporary inconvenience
and therefore no claim is justified.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
5. 1. The renovations to the flight kitchen area have been
going on for 12 months and are still continuing at present.
New equipment are being installed and areas are being
redesigned. Many months delay (details supplied) have
prolonged the disturbance time and exposure to the dust, dirt
and noise pollution.
2. The claim in dispute was first submitted in June 1990
arising because of the workload of members in the flight
kitchen causing them to be fully occupied in catering
equipment work. A very high standard of service has been
delivered during the busiest period anyone can remember.
This was carried out against a background of disturbance
(details supplied to the Court). In addition because of
delays obsolete equipment has been kept in operation without
spares and under extreme pressure.
3. The Rights Commissioner made to his recommendation after
lengthly consideration of all the facts of the case. In
addition he had the benefit of having visited the site during
construction. He was consequently well aware of our members
difficulties when he made his recommendation.
DECISION:
6. The Court having considered the written and oral submissions
of the parties is of the view that compensation should only be
given where the effects of construction work is continuous and
severe in nature.
In all the circumstances of this case the Court believes that the
claim does not meet this criterion and upholds the Company's
appeal.
The Court would endorse the statements in other recommendations
in relation to the parties reaching an agreement on "disturbance"
type claims.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
13th May, 1991 Evelyn Owens
J.F. / M.O'C. _______________
Deputy Chairman