FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 20(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : BRC MCMAHON REINFORCEMENTS LIMITED (REPRESENTED BY IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION) - AND - A WORKER (REPRESENTED BY SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION) DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Duffy Employer Member: Mr Grier Worker Member: Mr O'Neill |
1. Compensation for damage to vehicle
BACKGROUND:
2. In August 2006 the worker parked his car in the Company's car park on Rosanna Road, Co. Tipperary. The worker claims that the car was damaged by an over-spray of industrial dust which landed on the vehicle. Five other cars were damaged and the Company sought a professional evaluation of the cost of repairing the damage. This came to €175 per car to have them rebuffed. The Company agreed to pay the cost and the five owners were happy with the repairs carried out but the worker concerned was not. After initially seeking legal advise the worker contacted the Union which referred the case to the Labour Court on the 3rd of January, 2008, in accordance with Section 20(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 22nd April, 2008, in Nenagh.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The worker's car was so damaged that it required a full new spray job to restore the paint work. The cost of same in addition to the cost of a car hire came to €2,000.
2. The Company made no effort to engage with the Union to find an acceptable solution the dispute.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. When the Company was informed of the overspray it immediately resolved to have the problem assessed by a firm of auto engineers. The six cars were buffed, polished and restored to their original condition. The worker concerned was the only one of the six owners who was not happy with the results.
2. The Company should not be penalised in excess of the liability it has already met.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court has some considerable reservations as to whether the issue before it constitutes the subject matter of a trade dispute. Nonetheless it is noted that the employer is not objecting to the Court dealing with the dispute and it has made a full submission on the issue involved.
It is clear that the Claimant was provided with the same facilities as all other employees whose property was affected by the incident giving rise to the dispute. The Court can see no reason as to why the Claimant should be afforded more favourable treatment and, accordingly, it does not recommend concession of the Union's claim.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Duffy
28th April, 2008______________________
CON.Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Ciaran O'Neill, Court Secretary.