FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 13(9), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : IARNROD EIREANN - AND - NATIONAL BUS AND RAIL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Ms Jenkinson Employer Member: Mr McHenry Worker Member: Mr O'Neill |
1. Appeal against Rights Commissioner's Recommendation 551/99JH.
BACKGROUND:
2. The dispute concerns one worker, a Senior Depot person, at Kilbarrack station on the Dublin Suburban Line. In April, 1999, on behalf of the worker, the Union claimed an inconvenience allowance, due to hardship endured by him in the course of redevelopment work being carried out by Dublin Corporation adjacent to the station. The claim was rejected by the Company on the grounds that, as the work was being carried out by the Corporation, the Company had no direct responsibility for any disruption caused. The matter was investigated by a Rights Commissioner who concluded that the complaint had not been fully presented by the Union nor had it been properly investigated by the Company. She concluded, further, that, while the Union had presented a claim for an allowance, no meetings had been sought to detail the claim. In the case of the Company, she concluded that no discussion had taken place with the claimant, the main point of the Company's rejection of the claim being the distinction drawn between work carried out by the Corporation rather than by the Company itself.
In the circumstances, she recommended that the worker should receive compensation of £250 in response to the claim submitted.
The Company appealed the Rights Commissioners Recommendation, on the 14th of November, 1999, in accordance with Section 13(9) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969. The Court heard the appeal, on the 28th of January, 2000, the earliest date convenient to both parties.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The work in question did not impinge on any of the Company's property and did not affect its normal day-to-day business. It was undertaken by means of a "way-leave" arrangement between the Company's Divisional Engineer and the Corporation and it did not have any untoward effect on the claimant or any other member of Company staff.
2. A compensatory payment such as recommended by the Rights Commissioner in this case would give rise to knock-on claims in situations where the activity complained of was outside the control the Company.
3. In regard to how the issue was handled, there is no record of any representation, written or verbal, being made by the worker to the District Manager's office. Equally, there is no record of representations, written or verbal, being made to his immediate line supervisor, the Stationmaster in Sutton Station.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. Following the Union's claim for compensation, in April, 1999, the Company response was to state that there was no work taking place at the Station. During the course of the subsequent Rights Commissioner's investigation, the District Manager stated that he first heard of the complaint after it was referred to the Rights Commissioner's Service. Accordingly, the Company rejected the claim before it was actually investigated by the District Manager.
2. When the District Manager ultimately went to the Station to investigate the matter, he spoke with a colleague of the claimant who knew nothing of the matter. The District Manager did however, establish that work was being carried out by the Corporation and, therefore, the Company had no direct responsibility for any disruption caused.
3. The worker was entitled to have his complaints fully investigated and to whatever assistance could be given in order to minimise disruption.
4. The worker complained regularly from April 1999 and was the subject of continual abuse from passengers due to the filthy underfoot conditions at the Station. He had to contend with deafening noise levels from angle grinders being used by the contractors on the site and he has had the security lighting disconnected at the station several times. He suffered undue hardship and inconvenience and should be compensated accordingly.
DECISION:
The Court has carefully examined all aspects of this appeal. The Court rejects the appeal on the basis that the Company had a liability to deal with the numerous complaints made by the worker, but it failed to do so. Such complaints warranted Company investigation and very little, if any, was taken. Therefore, the Court concurs with the Rights Commissioner that a payment of £250 should be paid to the worker as compensation for such inaction by the Company.
The appeal is therefore, rejected.
The Court so decides.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Caroline Jenkinson
9th February, 2000.______________________
MK/BCDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Decision should be addressed to Michael Keegan, Court Secretary.