FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : AER RIANTA - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Ms Jenkinson Employer Member: Mr McHenry Worker Member: Ms Ni Mhurchu |
1. Disturbance due to various factors.
BACKGROUND:
2. The dispute concerns a claim, on behalf of 230 members of the Airport Police and Fire Service (APFS) at Dublin Airport, for compensation of £1,500 for disturbance arising from ongoing construction work in various areas of the Airport. The claim was rejected by the Company and the matter was the subject of a Conciliation Conference under the auspices of the Labour Relations Commission, at which agreement was not reached. The dispute was referred to the Labour Court, on the 8th of July, 1998, in accordance with S26(1) of Industrial Relations Act, 1990. The Court carried out its investigation into the matter at a hearing which commenced on the 17th October, 1998. The hearing was resumed, in Dublin Airport, and was followed by site inspection by the Court, on the 2nd November, 1998.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
1. Dublin Airport is a virtual building site with extensive work being undertaken in many areas. The current phase of building work is projected to continue until 2003. This creates considerable difficulties for the staff and the working environment of the APFS has been severely impacted on by the on-going work. Their points of operation have been moved, they have had to work in muddy and grossly unpleasant conditions and a number of their posts have been allowed to deteriorate to an intolerable and unacceptable level. Their response has been to try to optimise the conditions, to continue to provide their services and to identify the health and safety hazards as and when they have arisen. The inconvenience and disturbance has been continuous and of a serious nature.
(Details supplied to the Court).
2. This case falls within the parameters which the Court has previously used in its decisions on awarding compensation for disturbance. It could be beneficial , bearing in mind the on-going nature of the situation, if a procedure could be established which would create formal guidelines for claims of this kind. Impartial criteria would have to be included to ensure that there was no exploitation of the nature of the problem by either side and that all the relevant factors would be considered fairly. This would give an impetus for the Company to identify and address problems promptly. If, in the future, the Company were to find it impossible to provide a decent working environment, the possibility for reasonable financial recognition for inconvenience and discomfort would be available to the workers affected.
3. The Company has acknowledged the problems but most have been long-fingered, at best, if not totally ignored. Neither the workers' comfort nor their welfare has been prioritised and the Company has not responded fairly or with consideration. Although, the Company has rejected the claim for compensation, the workers have continued to give their co-operation and have maintained their service in spite of the inconvenience and disturbance. Accordingly, they should receive compensation of a sum which genuinely recognises the extent and the seriousness of the inconvenience and disturbance which they have suffered.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
1. The construction work engaged in is essential if the Company is to exploit the growth in aviation traffic and ensure Dublin Airport's long term development and the security of employment for its 1,330 employees. The enhanced facilities will also lead to an improved working environment.
2. The plans and their likely impact on the operation were communicated to the representatives of the APFS. They were consulted with regarding the design of both temporary and permanent facilities and where possible their suggestions were incorporated into the design and layout. Every possible effort was made to reduce the impact of any building work undertaken.
3. The rotating nature of the APFS jobs ensures that no workers spend long hours in any one location.
4. Members of the Force are covered by a collective agreement on both the Clause 3 3% under the PESP and the bonus scheme which commits them to a continuation of local flexibilities to suit local, business and operational requirements. Increases in traffic resulting from new improved facilities should also financially benefit the members of the Force through increased bonus payments.
5. The Company is committed to its major capital investment programme at a time when it is facing the threat of the losses in excess of 50% of operation profits within the next twelve months. The Company is also coming under pressure to review airport charges and examine its cost base. This makes the development of the passenger side of the business and the control of costs all the more essential. The concession of this claim would be a serious cost at this difficult time and would almost certainly lead to knock-on claims from other categories of Aer Rianta workers and would establish an undesirable precedent for the future. It could have an impact at Shannon and Cork Airports which are also undergoing major capital works, where members of the Force are covered by the same collective agreements.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court has given serious consideration to the claim for compensation for disturbance arising out of the construction work at Dublin Airport. Following the initial hearing the Court decided it was necessary to carry out an inspection of some of the areas which are the subject of this claim.
The Court is satisfied that there was more than adequate consultation at all times, between management and the Union, regarding the effects of the construction work on the claimants.
The issue of health and safety was of paramount importance to management and, in the Court's view, was dealt with on a very professional basis at all times. Any problems which arose were dealt with quickly.
While working in an area during construction work is not ideal, the Court believes that the Company had taken all reasonable steps to minimise any inconvenience to the employees concerned. The Court notes that these claimants are operating on a rotational basis and, therefore, only spend a proportion of their time in areas affected by the construction work.
The Court rejects the claim for compensation payment, and does not recommend concession of the Union's claim.
The Court is of the view that a number of issues which were included within this claim, e.g., No. 3 Post, Hangar 6 Post, Female Accommodation - Fire Station, and the Breakroom, etc., are issues which should be capable of being resolved at local level.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Caroline Jenkinson
23rd November, 1998______________________
MK/BCDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Michael Keegan, Court Secretary.