Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD93306 Case Number: LCR14133 Section / Act: S26(1) Parties: ROCHES STORES - and - IRISH DISTRIBUTIVE AND ADMINISTRATIVE TRADE UNION |
Disturbance money (move from Henry Street to Strand Street).
Recommendation:
5. The Court having considered all of the views of the parties
oral and written does not find there are grounds for concession of
the claim.
The Court so recommends.
Division: MrMcGrath Mr McHenry Mr O'Murchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD93306 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR14133
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990
PARTIES: ROCHES STORES
(REPRESENTED BY THE IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS CONFEDERATION)
and
IRISH DISTRIBUTIVE AND ADMINISTRATIVE TRADE UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Disturbance money (move from Henry Street to Strand Street).
BACKGROUND:
2. The Company employs approximately 2,500 employees in its
retail outlets at various locations. In early 1992, arising from
a shortage of office space in Henry Street, Dublin (Company's Head
Office) the Company proposed to relocate a number of its clerical
staff in Strand Street.
The Union submitted a number of claims in relation to the move,
including a claim for #600 for inconvenience, both for staff
moving and staff remaining in Henry Street. The Company rejected
the claim.
The matter was referred to the Labour Relations Commission.
Conciliation conferences were held on 5th June, 1992 and 19th
February, 1993, but no agreement was reached and the matter was
referred to the Labour Court on 16th April, 1993. The Labour
Court hearing took place on 3rd June, 1993.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The conditions of the workers who moved to Strand Street
are now far worse than those enjoyed by the managers, buyers
and other clerical staff who remained in Henry Street. The
Company should have ensured that the conditions in Strand
Street matched those in the refurbished Henry Street Office.
2. The office area in Henry Street was cramped and management
have acknowledged this. During the course of the building
work the area was extremely cramped despite the departure of a
number of staff to Strand Street and workmen were constantly
moving office fixtures.
3. During the building work staff regularly had to remove
dust from their desks.
4. The noise from hammers and drills was disruptive and
caused great difficulty with telephone calls. Following the
move to Strand Street there was noise from drills and hammers
for a period of about 2 months.
5. There were problems with draughts in both Strand Street
and Henry Street. The draughts in Strand Street were caused
by badly fitted doors, etc.. The staff now need to wear
heavier clothing but they are not allowed to do so.
6. The workers concerned had to endure sewage smells in the
Strand Street offices. The smell was in the locker rooms and
dining room and this eventually led to the staff having to go
back to Henry Street for their lunch break. These sewage
smells have not yet been eradicated and this alone warrants
compensation to be paid to the staff who have suffered since
last June.
7. The workers concerned feel that the Strand Street building
is not suitable for office accommodation. Most of the
buildings in Strand Street are derelict buildings.
8. The Company has benefited from the refurbishment of the
Henry Street store and the move to Strand Street. The workers
should receive compensation for the inconvenience they have
suffered.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The move to Strand Street was an attempt to improve the
working conditions of the staff concerned.
2. The Company sought planning permission for both its Henry
Street and Abbey Street premises but was refused.
3. The facilities in Henry Street were overcrowded and
outdated. After the move, the Company undertook to refurbish
completely the Henry Street offices which catered for 34
clerical staff and 36 group buyers. The refurbishment lasted
8 weeks. Special instructions were issued to the builders
regarding the control of noise and dust during the
refurbishment programme. Any heavy work undertaken was,
wherever possible confined to after-hours. Structural changes
involved a self-assembly system, made off-site and thereafter
slotted into place.
4. Every precaution was taken to ensure that staff were
inconvenienced as little as possible and any concerns raised
at the time were immediately responded to by management.
5. The workers concerned were spoken to on an individual
basis by management as soon as the decision had been taken to
relocate. From March, 1992, a number of local-level meetings
took place involving management, staff and Union
representatives. Management were concerned that any
problematic areas should be resolved prior to any move taking
place.
6. Staff raise a number of issues giving rise to concern:
1. Overtime Earnings, Thursday Night Trading
Although the workers concerned were employed solely as
office staff, they enjoyed the facility of working as
Sales Assistants on Thursday late-night trading. Staff
sought to retain this facility. The Company conceded to
this request.
2. Overtime Earnings, Sunday (Christmas) Trading
Office staff in Henry Street also had the facility of
working on the Sundays approaching Christmas and sought to
retain this facility. Again management acceded to this
request.
3. Shopping Facilities
Office staff at Henry Street had the facility of shopping
in the store during working hours. They were anxious that
this facility would be retained. Management proposed that
staff at Strand Street would be allowed an additional 15
minutes at lunchtime on a twice-weekly basis. This was
accepted by staff.
4. Holiday List
Staff proposed that a separate holiday list would operate
for Strand Street. This was agreed by management.
5. Staff Facilities
Anxious that staff involved in the transfer would enjoy
the same conditions as their Henry Street colleagues,
management extended the following facilities to Strand
Street:
Staff Restaurant providing, inter alia, a hot meal
Shower facilities - although these do not exist at
any other location
Cloakrooms and lockers.
6. Environmental Conditions
Although it had not originally been intended, management
agreed to staff requests that up-to-date air conditioning
facilities be installed, together with natural light, new
furniture and extra telephones.
7. Security
The Company raised this matter with the Gardai and Dublin
Corporation and satisfied both itself and the staff that
Strand Street was a safe area in which to work.
7. The extension of existing facilities to staff in Strand
Street is not simply a maintenance of the 'status quo'.
Strand Street staff are employed solely as clerical staff and
thus have no claim to sales assistant duties or conditions.
Because, however, they were working alongside sales staff in
Henry Street who worked overtime and had shopping facilities,
it seemed only fair in the past to allow Henry Street clerical
staff enjoy similar conditions. When the move to Strand
Street took place, however, there was no longer any logic in
staff retaining thee facilities.
8. All of the above guarantees and facilities were granted to
Strand Street staff before any move took place. Indeed, it
was contingent on the new premises being in pristine condition
and office staff being entirely satisfied with every aspect of
the move that management requested staff transfers. In return
for staff agreeing to move to new premises, management
undertook to make the transfer as painless as possible; agreed
that staff transferring would suffer no deterioration of
conditions or facilities and, in fact, would actually improve
their benefits in some cases.
9. All issues raised during discussions with employees were
addressed by management. If management had been aware that a
compensation claim was to be made, it would have addressed the
situation in an entirely different manner.
10. All the facilities extended to staff were given as a
gesture of goodwill. Management believes that despite the
extension of these facilities, no actual 'inconvenience' or
'disturbance' actually took place. No member of staff has
expressed any dissatisfaction with either the move or the
facilities in the new premises.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. The Court having considered all of the views of the parties
oral and written does not find there are grounds for concession of
the claim.
The Court so recommends.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Tom McGrath
___________________
16th July, 1993. Deputy Chairman.
F.B./J.C.
Note
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to
Mr. Fran Brennan, Court Secretary.