FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : SMURFIT CORRUGATED CASES (REPRESENTED BY THE IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION) - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Duffy Employer Member: Mr Pierce Worker Member: Mr O'Neill |
1. Claim for compensation for inconvenience and disturbance.
BACKGROUND:
2. Following the Company's decision to replace the asbestos roof at its Walkinstown depot, due to its poor condition, various studies were carried out by experts as to how the project might be undertaken. It was decided to segment the plant into zones, erect scaffolding over particular zones, build an airtight enclosure on the scaffolding and remove and replace the roof in this enclosure. On completion the scaffolding and enclosure would be moved to the next zone, and the process would be repeated. The work commenced at the end of July, 1997. In late August, 1997, the Union submitted its claim on the grounds that significant inconvenience was caused to workers. Management rejected the claim. The dispute was referred to the Labour Relations Commission and a conciliation conference was held on the 3rd of October, 1997. Agreement could not be reached. The dispute was referred to the Labour Court by the Labour Relations Commission on the 21st October, 1997. A Court hearing was held on the 19th of December, 1997.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. Workers did not anticipate the level and scale of inconvenience and disruption which occurred during the renovations. As part of safety procedures the wearing of hard hats is compulsory but they are very uncomfortable and irritating to wear for long periods.
2. Delays were encountered in zones which were remedied by working ahead with scaffolding thus leaving much greater areas scaffolded at one time than originally anticipated. This meant that at times up to 40% of floor area was under scaffolding.
3. The boarding and planking of scaffolding effectively lowered the ceiling which resulted in increased noise levels and excessive heat at machines. Other areas are extremely cold. Conditions are very difficult for fork-truck drivers due to space and access restrictions. There is added congestion due to the extra forklifts of contractors. There are increases in diesel and paint fumes and excessive dust is generated.
4. The erection of scaffolding over weekends has resulted in the non availability of Saturday for production work. This created a potential loss of earnings.
5. Further disturbance has been caused on numerous occasions by objects falling from or through the roof and water leaks.
6. The magnitude of the inconvenience was not appreciated by workers until well after the work commenced. Only then was the Union's claim lodged. It is not an opportunistic claim but is based on the excessive amount of disturbance and inconvenience to workers which warrants a substantial weekly payment for the duration of the project, backdated to its commencement date.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Company had a choice of various options for the ceiling replacement project. One of those was to close the plant for three months and place the workers concerned on lay-off for that period. This option was not taken by Management as it would have meant all factory employees going on Social Welfare for three months, which the Company wished to avoid.
2. The Company chose the option which would minimise disruption to the plant. This was the most expensive option costing £1.5 million. It was chosen to try to keep disruption at as low a level as possible and to avoid any lay-off of workers.
3. All possible steps were taken to minimise disruption and discomfort (details supplied to the Court).
4. It was explained to workers at various meetings why the option was chosen. It was also explained to them that construction hard hats would have to be worn. This was not a Company decision but a requirement under the law.
5. It was not anticipated that workers would subsequently claim an extra payment. There is no justification or precedent for such a payment.
6. Health and Safety considerations are of paramount importance. The concept of a disturbance payment as a consequence of a Company acting in a responsible manner is untenable.
RECOMMENDATION:
Having considered the written and oral submissions made by the parties, the Court appreciates the inconvenience caused by the refurbishment work at the Company's premises. The work is, however, of relatively short duration and is being undertaken in a way which avoids the necessity of ceasing production with consequential lay-off of staff. Moreover the Court has not been made aware of any precedent for the payment of compensation in the circumstances pertaining in this case.
In these circumstances the Court does not recommend concession of the Unions claim.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Duffy
23rd January, 1998______________________
T.O'D./D.T.Deputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Tom O'Dea, Court Secretary.