Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD95379 Case Number: LCR14880 Section / Act: S20(1) Parties: DUBLIN CORPORATION - and - IRISH MUNICIPAL, PUBLIC AND CIVIL TRADE UNION (IMPACT;SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION (SIPTU |
Payment of compensation for cleaners.
Recommendation:
The Court considered the written and oral submissions from the
Parties.
Health and Safety issues arising from this case were not before
the Court. The only issue before the Court was clarified to be a
claim for compensation for extra work undertaken by the claimants
during the completion of the new Civic Office blocks.
While extra work may have arisen for the claimants, there is no
means of measuring this as the issue seems to have only become a
high profile issue after building work was completed.
Based on the information available, the Court does not recommend
concession of the Unions' claim.
Division: Mr Flood Mr Pierce Ms Ni Mhurchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD95379 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR14880
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 20(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969
PARTIES:
DUBLIN CORPORATION
AND
IRISH MUNICIPAL, PUBLIC AND CIVIL TRADE UNION (IMPACT)
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION (SIPTU)
SUBJECT:
Payment of compensation for cleaners.
BACKGROUND:
The claim is in respect of 15 cleaners who work in the new
Civic Offices. The Unions claim that the workers deserve
compensation because of the adverse conditions they worked
under in 1994.
The Civic Offices consist of four blocks. Blocks 1 and 2
were the originals, with blocks 3 and 4 being built adjacent
to the first two. In 1994, the four blocks were linked.
This involved knocking down walls, building new ones and
building connecting corridors. The connecting of the blocks
was done at four levels.
On 24th November, 1994, the Unions submitted a claim, on
behalf of the cleaners, to the Corporation on the following
grounds:
"the inhalation of dust, loose cables lying around,
excessive noise levels and the strain and stress that
the cleaners were working under".
The dispute was referred to the Labour Relations Commission
(L.R.C.), and a conciliation conference took place on 21st
March, 1995. The Unions restated their claim for
compensation. The Corporation maintained that the claim
should have been addressed under Company/Union Procedural
Agreement on Health and Safety and not as compensation. The
Corporation declined to attend a second conciliation
conference and the dispute was referred by the the Unions to
the Labour Court on 26th June, 1995, in accordance with
Section 20(1), of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969. A
Labour Court hearing took place on 14th August, 1995.
UNIONS' ARGUMENTS:
1. The cleaners worked in extremely unpleasant conditions. Most
of the work done by the builders was carried out after office
hours, during the time that the cleaners were working. There
was widespread dust and extreme noise levels. Rooms which
were cleaned were covered in dust soon after. The cleaners
were required to maintain the same cleaning standard as
normal.
2. No instructions were given to the cleaners as to where they
should or should not work. They had complained about the
working conditions at local level for some time but nothing
was done about it. The claim is based on a number of factors
and not just the Health and Safety aspect, as the Corporation
maintains.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
1. The work had been ongoing for 18 months before the Unions
made their claim. By the time that the offices were examined
on 23rd November, 1994, the building work had been completed.
The cleaners had been instructed not to clean up after the
builders, as this was part of the builders' contract. The
cleaners did not have to do extra work. The Corporation has
a "swat team" which it uses for particularly heavy cleaning
jobs. The Unions are aware of this but did not request the
use of the "swat team".
2. The claim should have been made under the Procedural
Agreement on Health and Safety. The Unions, in their
original claim made on 24th November, 1994, referred to
compensation which "must be paid to the cleaners for strain
and stress they are now working under". These are clearly
Health and Safety issues. In a letter to the L.R.C. on 31st
March, 1995, the Unions stated that the claim was now for
compensation for additional work being done by the cleaners.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court considered the written and oral submissions from the
Parties.
Health and Safety issues arising from this case were not before
the Court. The only issue before the Court was clarified to be a
claim for compensation for extra work undertaken by the claimants
during the completion of the new Civic Office blocks.
While extra work may have arisen for the claimants, there is no
means of measuring this as the issue seems to have only become a
high profile issue after building work was completed.
Based on the information available, the Court does not recommend
concession of the Unions' claim.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
30th August, 1995 Finbarr Flood
C.O.N./A.K. ---------------
Deputy Chairman
Note
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to
Mr. Ciaran O'Neill, Court Secretary.