FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2004 SECTION 20(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : BUS EIREANN - AND - TRANSPORT SALARIED STAFFS' ASSOCIATION DIVISION : Chairman: Ms Jenkinson Employer Member: Mr Grier Worker Member: Mr O'Neill |
1. Settlement claim for disturbance/disruption (9 Clerical Staff ).
BACKGROUND:
2. The issue relates to a large-scale redeployment project that was undertaken at the Bus �ireann depot in Sligo between early May, 2003 and December, 2003 The project involved a total refurbishment of the bus station and surrounding areas. The Union claims that preparations for the renovations created a major upheaval for the Clerical Staff who initially had the responsibility of cleaning out the entire files etc at the existing offices.
The Company stated that in April, 2003 a local staff team was set up comprising clerical, driver, inspector and operative grades, to oversee the start of the project and to ensure proper communication with staff in relation to the changes. A letter of claim for financial compensation for disturbance was received from the Union on behalf of the clerical staff on the 24th April, 2006. The Company rejected the claim for compensation for future disturbance on the grounds that it was making every reasonable effort to minimise the inconvenience to staff. In December, 2003, the Union submitted the claim to the Joint Industrial Relations Forum, a Company/Union dispute resolution body set up under the agreed Negotiations and Dispute Resolutions Procedures.
The Forum considered a similar claim, referred by the Unions representing drivers and garage staff, at a hearing on the 8th September, 2003. The TSSA Union were not present at the hearing. The Forum subsequently recommended that a sum of €10,000 be divided equally amongst all staff in Sligo in recognition of staff co-operation at the Depot. The Unions representing the drivers were unhappy with this award and requested a review of the recommendation. A review took place on the 19th October, 2004 and a further recommendation was issued which stated that the sum of €10,000 be divided amongst drivers and inspectors only. This had the effect of increasing the amount per person to €344.83.
The TSSA presented a separate case to the Forum on behalf of their members on the basis that they deserved a greater monetary payment than other grades of staff. This case was heard on the 20th October, 2004. An award of €3,400 to be divided equally among the staff that worked for the full period of the works (€377.00 per person). The Union rejected the Forum's recommendation and referred the matter to the Labour Relations Commission (LCR) in October, 2005. The Company declined to attend the LRC on the grounds that the matter had been processed through to finality under the agreed dispute Resolution Procedure. The Union then referred the claim to the Labour Court on the 31st January, 2006 in accordance with Section 20(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969 and agreed to be bound by the Court's recommendation. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 6th October, 2006.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3.1 The ongoing renovations mainly took place over the summer months which meant that the clerical staff often had to work in very hot temperatures without the facility of an adequate ventilation/air condition system.
2. Whilst office space was in itself at an absolute minimum, staff were literally 'jammed in like sardines', thus dangerous in terms of physical risk and extremely unhealthy to work in, however, staff managed to continue to work in a willing and co-operative manner in both an arduous and hazardous environment throughout the duration of the disruption caused in the space provided.
3. The Union argues that there is no comparison between the levels of disturbance suffered by the clerical grades and that of any other grades (drivers) in the Depot. Clerical staff were the only members of staff who actually worked a continuous 7-8 hour day, five days a week, every week during the period of disruption.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4.1 It is the Company's view that the inconvenience caused to staff during the works were unavoidable and relatively minor in nature. The renovations work at the Depot were of short duration and did not warrant a compensatory payment. The Company took reasonable steps to reduce the impact of the construction work on staff. Having regard to this it was the Company position that a compensatory payment was not warranted. However in keeping with the Provisions of Clause 5 of the agreed framework the Company would have been prepared to pay the monetary amount recommended by the Forum to the Staff concerned. The same situation obtained in relation to a similiar claim for the Driver/Inspectors grade and the Company met the payment recommended in full.
2. The long term benefit for all staff is a considerable improvement in accommodation and facilities.
3. The investment in the Sligo Depot was welcomed by staff and customers alike.
4. Any alternation in the Forum's findings will seriously undermine the effectiveness of the agreed procedures.
RECOMMENDATION:
The dispute before the Court relates to a claim by the Union on behalf of clerical staff seeking compensation for the conditions endured during renovation works at the Sligo depot when staff were required to move to a temporary location for a period of 5 months.
The Union submitted the claim to the Joint Industrial Relations Forum, a Company/Union dispute resolution body set up under the agreed Negotiation and Dispute Resolution procedures. The Joint Industrial Relations Forum issued its recommendation on the issue on 24th November, 2004.
The members rejected this recommendation and the claim was subsequently referred under Section 20(1) to the Labour Court.
Having considered the submissions of both sides the Court does not recommend any variance in the Forum's recommendation on the disturbance payment recommended, and consequently recommends that"that a monetary award of €3,400 should be equally divided among the staff that worked for the full period involved and were directly affected by these works".
The Court so recommends.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Caroline Jenkinson
17th_October, 2006______________________
JBDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Jackie Byrne, Court Secretary.