FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2001 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : IARNROD EIREANN - AND - TRANSPORT SALARIED STAFFS' ASSOCIATION DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Duffy Employer Member: Mr Carberry Worker Member: Ms Ni Mhurchu |
1. Disturbance.
BACKGROUND:
2. In May, 1998, work began on a major reconstruction of Connolly Station. A large element of the work occurred above the Marketing Department offices. The Union's claim concerns 4 workers employed in these offices, and is for compensation due to disturbance which occurred over 15 months. (The Union supplied details of conditions which involved noise, dust, dirt, fumes, flooding and falling ceiling tiles). The Company disputes the level of inconvenience. In July, 1999, it was suggested that a portacabin office could be used by the workers in the carpark in Connolly Station but, in the event, this did not happen. At the hearing, there was disagreement between the parties as to the reason why the portacabin was not used. The Union's claim is for £5,000 (€ 6,349) per person.
The dispute was referred to the Labour Relations Commission and a conciliation conference took place on the 15th day of March, 2002. As the parties did not reach agreement, the dispute was referred to the Labour Court on the 9th day of July, 2001, in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 31st day of January, 2002, the earliest date suitable to the parties.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The workers had to endure 15 months of unhealthy, hazardous and distressful working conditions. Despite repeated complaints, very little was done by management to improve things.
2. Following an inspection by a safety officer, the workers were removed for 1 week. However, when they returned, conditions were no better. In August, 1999, the workers were dispersed to separate but not necessarily suitable accommodation.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The area in which claimants worked was not affected until the Summer of 1999. The refurbishment was part of a major programme to update facilities for staff and passengers.
2. The Company did respond to complaints made by the workers (details supplied to the Court). The only incident brought to the attention of the Marketing Manager was the "falling tile" incident, which prompted the immediate relocation of staff. Concession of the claim would lead to "knock-on" claims.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court does not accept that the effects on staff of necessary refurbishment work can, in itself, give rise to a valid claim for compensation. The Court does, however, accept that an employer should take such steps as are reasonable to mitigate the disruptive effect of such work on employees.
In the present case, there is a sharp difference in recollection between the Company and the Union on the steps offered, or requested, to accommodate staff during the work in question. The representatives of the employees directly concerned told the Court that they had been promised temporary alternative accommodation but that this was not subsequently provided. Whilst the management spokesperson had a different understanding of what occurred, the Court has no reason to doubt the evidence of those directly concerned in these discussions at that relevant time.
The Court believes that the Company could reasonably have been expected to provide the alternative accommodation promised. In all the circumstances of the case, the Court recommends that the Company should offer, and the Union should accept an ex-gratia payment to each of the 4 employees associated with this claim of €350 in full and final settlement of all claims.
It should be understood that the Court is not recommending compensation for inconvenience caused by refurbishment, rather it is proposing a gesture in recognition of the Company's failure to provide the temporary alternative accommodation offered.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Duffy
18th February, 2002______________________
CO'N/MBDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Ciaran O'Neill, Court Secretary.