Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD91380 Case Number: AD9180 Section / Act: S13(9) Parties: PENNYS LIMITED (DUN LAOGHAIRE) - and - IRISH DISTRIBUTIVE AND ADMINISTRATIVE TRADE UNION |
Appeal by the Company against Rights Commissioner's recommendation No. ST85/91 concerning disturbance payments.
Recommendation:
5. Having considered the submissions from the parties, the Court
is of the view the degree of disturbance incurred does not warrant
payment of compensation.
The Court accordingly upholds the Company's appeal and so decides.
Division: Ms Owens Mr Collins Ms Ni Mhurchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD91380 APPEAL DECISION NO. AD8091
THE LABOUR COURT
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 13(9), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT 1969
PARTIES: PENNYS LIMITED (DUN LAOGHAIRE)
AND
IRISH DISTRIBUTIVE AND ADMINISTRATIVE TRADE UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Appeal by the Company against Rights Commissioner's
recommendation No. ST85/91 concerning disturbance payments.
BACKGROUND:
2. The dispute concerns workers who are employed at the
Company's Dun Laoghaire outlet. In March 1991 a meeting was held
between the parties to discuss a claim by the Union for a
disturbance/inconvenience payment as a result of renovation work
carried out on the premises between July and September, 1990. The
Company rejected the claim. The Union referred the dispute to a
Rights Commissioner for investigation and recommendation in May
1991 and on the 12th June, 1991 the Rights Commissioner issued his
recommendation as follows:
"Without prejudice to the fact that it is accepted that change
is the dynamic which ensures the future of the enterprise and
that from time to time "normal disruption" is part of the lot
of the Store's Staff, I wish to recommend that the claimants
receive £60 each (and pro rata to part-time staff) in full
and final settlement of all claims arising from the
installation of the new registers and other ancillary work at
the store."
On the 23rd July, 1991 the Company appealed the recommendation to
the Labour Court under Section 13(9) of the Industrial Relations
Act 1969. A Court hearing was held on the 26th August, 1991.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. Extensive electrical work was carried out on the cash
points where sales assistants are employed, between June and
September, 1990. During the course of this renovation work
the employees concerned experienced severe noise from the
drilling carried out by the electrical workers. Similar work
was performed at the customer service desk. Scaffolding was
erected on the stairs in the main shop floor and work on the
lighting was carried out until February, 1991.
2. Between June, 1990 and February, 1991, various levels of
inconvenience were experience and should be the subject of
compensation. While the Union originally claimed
compensation in the amount of £250.00 for full-time staff
with pro rata payments for part-time staff, it has accepted
the Rights Commissioner's recommendation and sees no
justification for overturning it.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. Similar routine work has been carried out in other
stores on a regular basis without any compensation either
claimed or justified. The work carried out at the store
involved rewiring for new cash registers and caused minimal
inconvenience to the workers concerned.
2. The Company is surprised that the Union has pursued this
claim in view of the small amount of work which took place.
Rewiring for the installation of new cash registers has been
a routine feature in the Company since 1980. No other claims
for compensation have been made for this work at any of the
Company's other outlets. A payment cannot be justified in
this case as no real inconvenience was caused to the workers
concerned.
3. The Company applies a productivity bonus of two weeks'
pay, payable to all staff in December of each year. This
bonus is paid on the basis of full co-operation of staff in
relation to duties assigned to them and on the basis of their
acceptance and implementation of new and improved systems
required to meet the demands of business. Clearly the
introduction of new cash registers falls under this heading.
4. The Labour Court has previously recommended against a
Union claim for compensation for updating cash registers in
the Dun Laoghaire store (LCR13157 refers). The Union is
seeking to re-introduce this claim under the guise of
renovation work.
DECISION:
5. Having considered the submissions from the parties, the Court
is of the view the degree of disturbance incurred does not warrant
payment of compensation.
The Court accordingly upholds the Company's appeal and so decides.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
13th September, 1991 Evelyn Owens
T.O'D / M.O'C. _______________
Deputy Chairman