Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD9647 Case Number: LCR15115 Section / Act: S26(1) Parties: ST. VINCENT'S HOSPITAL, FAIRVIEW (Represented by IBEC) - and - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION |
Compensation for inconvenience caused by building work.
Recommendation:
Having considered the submissions and noting the severe degree of
inconvenience endured by the claimants the Court recommends the
payment of an ex gratia payment of £800 to be divided between the
claimants as they see fit.
Division: Ms Owens Mr Keogh Mr Rorke
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD9647 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR15115
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990
PARTIES:
ST. VINCENT'S HOSPITAL, FAIRVIEW
AND
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Compensation for inconvenience caused by building work.
BACKGROUND:
2. 1. In July, 1994 a fire seriously damaged the staff dining
area which resulted it its closure. The rebuilding and
renovation work commenced in May 1995 and was completed
in August, 1995. The Union is claiming compensation for
its members (16) as a result of the inconvenience caused
to them.
2. The Union claims that for a period of 12 months the
staff concerned who are employed in the kitchen/dining
room area had to operate from a temporary dining room
until the structural and refurbishment work was
completed. The work consisted of major re-construction
which included the demolition of walls, plumbing,
electrical work and ventilation. Throughout the
re-construction the kitchen/dining room staff continued to provide a s
despite the conditions and the disruptions taking place.
3. The hospital stated that the contractors concerned
carried out their work in such a manner as to minimise
the disruption to the kitchen staff. Management also
provided ear muffs for staff and in other cases gave
additional time off to staff who required it. The new
kitchen facilities will have long term benefits for all
the staff concerned.
4. As no agreement was possible between the parties, the
dispute was referred to the Conciliation Service of the
Labour Relations Commission. A conciliation conference
was held on the 15th August, 1995. No progress was made
at conciliation to reach a negotiated settlement.
However, several attempts were made subsequently to
resolve the dispute on an informal basis. Management
offered to cover the cost of a "night out" for the
claimants. The offer was rejected by the members.
5. No agreement was possible at conciliation and the
dispute was referred to the Labour Court on 22nd
January, 1996 under Section 26(1) of the Industrial
Relations Act, 1990. The Court investigated the dispute
on the 12 March, 1996.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The workers concerned endured poor working conditions
during the re-construction/refurbishment programme but
continued to provide canteen facilities to the hospital
staff.
2. The staff responded to the crisis following the fire.
They continued to work under trying conditions of dust,
noise and the hazards of wet floors. They also had to
carry boiling water from the kitchen to the wash area.
3. The offer by management of £250.00 towards a staff
"night out" was derisory and took no account of the
efforts made to maintain a service.
4. There is resentment among the catering staff who feel
that their goodwill has been taken advantage of by
management.
HOSPITAL'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The hospital is opposed in principle to any compensation
to staff as a result of refurbishment work carried out
at the hospital.
2. It is accepted by management that the building work did
cause disturbance to staff and that staff co-operation
in the matter was much appreciated.
3. The hospital has not paid compensation for disturbance
in the past and are not in a position to concede this
claim.
4. Disturbance payments were eliminated in the Public
Sector in the early 1980's. Also, the Labour Court has
upheld management's arguments in the past regarding
disturbance payments (LCR 13997 and LCR 14750 refers).
5. The claim is cost increasing and is precluded by the
Programme for Competitiveness and Work (PCW).
RECOMMENDATION:
Having considered the submissions and noting the severe degree of
inconvenience endured by the claimants the Court recommends the
payment of an ex gratia payment of £800 to be divided between the
claimants as they see fit.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
25th March, 1996 Evelyn Owens
L.W./S.G. --------------
Chairman
Note
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to
Mr. Larry Wisely, Court Secretary.