Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD95355 Case Number: LCR14848 Section / Act: S26(1) Parties: POWER SUPERMARKETS - and - MANDATE |
Claim for compensation for disturbance and inconvenience.
Recommendation:
In the circumstances of this case the Court recommends that the
Company pay the claimants a lump sum of #3,000 to be divided
between the claimants in a manner to be agreed by them and the
Union.
Division: Ms Owens Mr Pierce Ms Ni Mhurchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD95355 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR14848
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990
PARTIES:
POWER SUPERMARKETS
AND
MANDATE
SUBJECT:
1. Claim for compensation for disturbance and inconvenience.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Company employs 128 workers at its store in Rathfarnham.
Extensive development work was carried out at the store
during the period April, 1994 to September, 1994. In August,
1994, the Union submitted a claim on behalf of approximately
110 workers for compensation in respect of the inconvenience
caused during the renovations.
Local level discussions took place at which the Company put
forward a proposal to make a once-off payment to the workers'
social fund in settlement of the claim. The Company's
proposal was unacceptable to the Union and the matter was
referred to the Labour Relations Commission. A conciliation
conference took place on 9th June, 1995. As no agreement was
reached the dispute was referred to the Labour Court on 9th
June, 1995 under Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations
Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on 12th July,
1990.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The building work undertaken during trading hours was
far in excess of the norm which might be considered
tolerable during working hours.
2. At various stages during the renovations the workers had
to endure the following:-
(a) Severe noise from hammering and drilling.
(b) Cronic levels of dust created from the
construction work and from the use of a heavy
`buffer' machine used to sweep the floor.
(c) The smell of tar and foul smelling pipes.
(d) Falling rubble was a constant problem.
(e) Electric cables run over large areas of the
floor.
3. Management rejected the Union's proposal to seek the
assistance of a Rights Commissioner to inspect the work
in question with a view to avoiding any disagreement as
to the nature and extent of the inconvenience.
4. The Company's claim that much of the heavy building work
was carried out at night is unacceptable. Substantial
building work was carried out during trading hours. The
Company failed to take reasonable steps to minimise the
inconvenience caused to the workers concerned. In the
circumstances the Union's claim for compensation is
justified.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The retail grocery industry is becoming increasingly
competitive and investment is necessary to maintain
competitiveness. It was decided to invest in
Rathfarnham to enhance the quality and range of products
and services provided to customers so as to protect
marketshare and thereby protecting employment. The
Company should not be penalised for reinvesting in its
business.
2. Management handled the development work in a
professional way and minimised disruption to customers
and staff/management alike. As a result, the store
remained open and layoffs were avoided.
3. Most of the workers benefited from the development work
with increased earnings from overtime and improved
working conditions in various areas of the store.
4. As part of the development management employed
additional staff to enhance the service provided to
customers.
5. Any issues or problems which were raised by staff with
management were promptly dealt with to avoid any
recurrence.
6. In keeping with established practice management met the
Union, assessed the claim and offered to make a once-off
lump sum payment to the staff social fund, as a gesture
of goodwill.
7. At conciliation the Company was prepared to try and
reach agreement within the parameters of previous
settlements. Unfortunately, this was not possible
because of the Union's expectations.
8. Management respectfully requests that the Court uphold
its position and recommend in accordance with the
practice as established between the Company and the
Union.
RECOMMENDATION:
In the circumstances of this case the Court recommends that the
Company pay the claimants a lump sum of #3,000 to be divided
between the claimants in a manner to be agreed by them and the
Union.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
1st August, 1995 Evelyn Owens
F.B./D.T. ____________
Chairman
Note
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to
Mr. Fran Brennan, Court Secretary.