FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2004 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : IARNROD EIREANN - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION NATIONAL BUS AND RAIL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Duffy Employer Member: Mr Grier Worker Member: Mr Nash |
1. Disturbance claim.
BACKGROUND:
2. The dispute involves a number of drivers based at Drogheda and concerns a claim for payment in respect of disruption which occured during construction of the new railcar facility at that location. The Unions supplied details of a number of conditions which it claims the workers had to endure. The Union is seeking €2,000 compensation for each of the drivers involved. The Company does not believe that any compensation is warranted.
The case was referred to the Labour Relations Commission and a conciliation conference took place. As the parties did not reach agreement, the dispute was referred to the Labour Court on the 9th of December, 2004, in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 15th of April, 2005.
UNIONS' ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The claim mainly involves the unpleasant conditions the workers had to endure but also concerns rostering arrangements which meant the workers had to come in two hours earlier than normal.
2. Workers elsewhere in the Company have been paid compensation because of construction work e.g. Heuston Station in 2002, and Fairview DART Depot.
3. The drivers concerned brought the issues of concerns to management's notice, including the fact that there was no water or electricity at times during the construction.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. A sitemanager was in place during construction and regular meetings took place to ensure that the day to day business was not hindered.
2. One of the main issues of concern was that the access area to one of the canteen was frequently traversed by trucks. In periods of wet weather the Company ensured that this area was cleaned twice daily.
3. Management always responded quickly when there were any reports of difficulties (details supplied to the Court).
4. There is no comparison between the disruption at Heuston Station and that endured by the drivers at Drogheda.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court has given careful consideration to the submissions of the parties in this case. In so far as the matters complained of are health and safety issues, the Court is of the view that a claim for compensation is not an appropriate mode of addressing such concerns.
In so far as other aspects of the claim are concerned, the Court does not consider that the degree of disturbance occasioned by the refurbishment works was such as to justify concession of the Unions' claim and the Court does not recommend that it be conceded.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Duffy
25th April, 2005______________________
CON/MB.Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Ciaran O'Neill, Court Secretary.