FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2004 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : IARNROD EIREANN - AND - NATIONAL BUS & RAIL UNION SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Duffy Employer Member: Mr Murphy Worker Member: Ms Ni Mhurchu |
1. Disturbance / Inconvenience Payment.
BACKGROUND:
2. +The dispute before the Court concerns a claim by SIPTU and NBRU for compensation for disturbance/ inconvenience arising out of the refurbishment works at Kent Station in Cork.
The refurbishment works began in October 2006 and are now largely completed. The works encompassed the provision of a new passenger concourse and an increased number of parking spaces. The works also provided for greatly updated and enhanced facilities for the staff at Kent Station. While the refurbishments were taking place the staff within Kent Station were moved to temporary portacabin accommodation, which was generally regarded as being superior to the accommodation from which the staff moved. It was 50 metres from the old accommodation.
The Union maintain that the space provided is cramped and inadequate for the needs of the members. The centre of the area is uncovered which causes inconvenience in inclement weather.
One Union signalled their intention, prior to the move, that they were going to lodge a claim for disturbance, the other Union lodged a formal claim with the Company on the 27th September 2006 for compensation for their members in recognition of the disturbance/ inconvenience being suffered.
The dispute could not be resolved at local level and was the subject of a conciliation conference under the auspices of the Labour Relations Commission. As agreement was not reached, the dispute was referred to the Labour Court on the 19th February, 2007, in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 16th May, 2007.
UNIONS' ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The ongoing work at Kent Station reflects what you would see in any building site in the country and our members have to carry out their duties in and around that area.
2. The Unions maintain that their members should not be treated less favourably than colleagues in other depots who have received compensation for disturbance during redevelopment work.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The refurbishment works carried out caused negligible disturbance/inconvenience for the staff at Kent Station.
2. The disturbance associated with the refurbishment works at Kent Station was very small in relation to that experienced during some of the cases outlined by the Unions where the Court recommended that compensation should not be paid.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court notes that the claim in this case is for twice that paid by the Company in respect of re-construction work at Heuston Station. The Court also notes that the work at Heuston Station extended over a period of three years whereas the work giving rise to this claim lasted circa six months. Accordingly, the Court cannot see any rational basis for the claim as presented.
The Court is further satisfied that the degree of disturbance occasioned by the refurbishment work at Kent Station is not such as to warrant the payment of compensation.
For these reasons the Court does not recommend concession of the Unions' claim.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Duffy
28th May, 2007______________________
MG.Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Madelon Geoghegan, Court Secretary.