Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD9294 Case Number: AD92153 Section / Act: S13(9) Parties: IRISH RAIL - and - IRISH CONGRESS OF TRADES UNIONS;CIE TRADE UNION GROUP |
Appeal by the Company of Rights Commissioner's Recommendation No. ST280/89 concerning compensation for inconvenience during refurbishment.
Recommendation:
The Court has considered the submissions of the parties and the
reasoning of the Rights Commissioner.
The Court given all the circumstances described in this case is
not convinced that the level of disturbance was such as to merit
compensation to be paid. The Court therefore has decided the
appeal of the Company should be upheld and the Rights
Commissioner's recommendation amended accordingly.
The Court so decides.
Division: MrMcGrath Mr Keogh Mr Rorke
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD9294 APPEAL DECISION NO. AD15392
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 13(9) INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969
PARTIES: IRISH RAIL
AND
IRISH CONGRESS OF TRADES UNIONS
(CIE TRADE UNION GROUP)
SUBJECT:
1. Appeal by the Company of Rights Commissioner's
Recommendation No. ST280/89 concerning compensation for
inconvenience during refurbishment.
BACKGROUND:
2. In 1988, the Company put into train a wide ranging physical
re-organisation of the workshops in the Inchicore Works. This
involved the closure of some and the re-location of others. As
part of this re-organisation it was decided to amalgamate all
the wheel turning activity in the Machine Shop. This involved
the transfer of a wheel lathe from another area of the works.
The work involved in the re-organisation was completed over the
period November, 1988 to Spring, 1991. In March, 1989, the
Union Group claimed compensation for the inconvenience arising
from the work in question which consisted of the excavation of a
pit, preparation of foundations, pouring concrete, etc. The
Company rejected the claim on the basis that the work in general
was being done outside normal working hours, at extra cost to
the Company and in order to minimise inconvenience to the
workers in the Machine Shop. The matter was referred to the
conciliation service of the Labour Court. No agreement was
reached at a conciliation conference held on 28th June, 1989 and
the matter was subsequently referred to a Right Commissioner for
investigation under Section 13(9) of the Industrial Relations
Act, 1969. On 24th January, 1992, the Rights Commissioner
issued the following findings and recommendation:
"FINDINGS
1. It is clear from the evidence presented that extreme
conditions were experienced, as a work stoppage took place
on one occasion. The Group states that the work was
ongoing from November 1988 until spring 1991. This seems
an inordinate amount of time.
2. In addition, the wall at the gate had to be knocked
down to allow ingress for the Hegenscheidt Machine. This
obviously created draughts, as the door was impaired in the
process. The digging of a hole 15 feet X 30 feet X 20 feet
deep by mechanical shovels also must have caused dust,
noise and fumes as claimed.
3. The Company in its submission outlines the various
measures it took to alleviate the conditions including
stoppage of the work on all occasions except once. All
this points to extreme conditions.
4. The Company quotes several Labour Court
Recommendations which laid down criteria for judgement on
such cases, as in AD1781 - 12/3/91 where the Court stated
interalia "grounds for compensation for disturbance should
only be adduced where the inconvenience to staff is of a
continuous and severe nature". I am satisfied that the
inconvenience was of a continuous nature over an unusually
extended period. Its severity was, in my view, in
proportion to the award made here under."
And he recommended:
"I recommend that each claimant receives £50 in full and
final settlement of all claims arising."
The Rights Commissioner's recommendation was rejected by the
Company which appealed it to the Labour Court, on 4th February,
1992, under Section 13(9) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969.
The Court heard the appeal on 28th February, 1992.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. In general all the work involved in the preparation of
the foundations for the wheel lathe was carried out outside
normal working hours. All complaints were dealt with
immediately and the work which resulted in the complaints
was postponed until after working hours. There was some
work that could not be carried out after hours and in these
instances every effort was made to minimise the disturbance
e.g. the provision of portable extractors to minimise
fumes.
2. The Rights Commissioner has stated that the work was
ongoing for an inordinate period. While the work did take
place between November, 1988 and Spring, 1991, it was not
continuous. A considerable amount of the work was carried
out during the close down period when there was no one in
the workshop. There were a number of reasons for the long
time-span involved in transferring the machinery, including
the necessity of leaving a considerable period of time
between the pouring of concrete and the installation of the
wheel lathe and the requirement to ensure that the transfer
would not disrupt the supply of wheels for the Company's
rolling-stock.
3. The Right Commissioner also refers to the digging of a
hole causing dust, noise and fumes. The Company does not
deny this but points out that except for a small number of
occasions, when the grievance period lasted for between 15
and 30 minutes, all of this work was carried out outside of
working hours. On every occasion that a problem arose, the
Company did everything it could to eliminate the
disturbance as quickly as possible.
4. The Rights Commissioner stated that he was "satisfied
that the inconvenience was of a continuous nature over an
unusually extended period". This was not the case. While
there was some inconvenience it was intermittent and
eliminated by the Company as quickly as possible.
5. The Court has in the past rejected claims for
compensation in cases such as this where disruption was not
severe (Labour Court Appeal Decisions AD1891 and AD2391 and
Recommendation No. LCR13160 refer).
UNION GROUP'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. One of the elements of the re-organisation resulted in
new foundations being laid. This required a hole being dug
with pneumatic drills, causing excessive noise, dust and
fumes in the workshop. Doors were constantly left open
allowing heat to escape and creating cold draughts.
Conditions were unbearable on occasion and led to friction,
particularly during the winter months.
2. A very large hole was dug for the wheel lathe. This
hole was left in the workshop until Spring 1991, when the
lathe was eventually put in place. When the lathe was
brought to the workshop it would not fit through the
door/gate. As a result part of the wall had to be knocked
down. A mobile crane had to be brought into the workshop
to manoeuvre the lathe into position. All this took a
number of days and caused considerable disruption.
3. Other machines were also re-located in the workshop,
including a boring machine and an axle pump. The
installation of these machines required preparatory work
similar to the lathe, resulting in fumes, noise and dust.
4. The Company did not take adequate steps to minimise
the disruption. The period required to complete the
re-organisation was excessive and the workers only
co-operated with the re-organisation activities on the
basis that a claim would be pursued to compensate them for
working under such adverse condition.
DECISION:
The Court has considered the submissions of the parties and the
reasoning of the Rights Commissioner.
The Court given all the circumstances described in this case is
not convinced that the level of disturbance was such as to merit
compensation to be paid. The Court therefore has decided the
appeal of the Company should be upheld and the Rights
Commissioner's recommendation amended accordingly.
The Court so decides.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Tom McGrath
______________________
28th April, 1992
B.O.N./N.Ni.M. Deputy Chairman