FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : FAILTE IRELAND (REPRESENTED BY IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION) - AND - 66 CLERICAL & ADMINISTRATION STAFF (REPRESENTED BY SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION) DIVISION : Chairman: Mr McGee Employer Member: Mr Murphy Worker Member: Ms Ni Mhurchu |
1. Alleged breach of Agreement on office space
BACKGROUND:
2. The dispute relates to the implementation of part of an Agreement brokered by the Labour Relations Commission (LRC) following the relocation of 66 Marketing Staff from premises in Pembroke Row, Dublin 2 to Amiens Street, Dublin 1 in January, 2007. The issue in the current dispute relates to two clauses in the 2007 Agreement - Clause 2 states:" a review of the marketing functions and resources, which would most likely require a reduction in the number of staff in selected areas within marketing"and Clause 3 states" consideration being given to any space options raised by staff, including maximising access to natural light and air, within four weeks of the review".
The Union'scase refers tothe office space in Amiens Street which it says is inferior to that which staff enjoyed in Pembroke Row and it also referred to overcrowding and a lack of natural light amongst other complaints. Part of the 2007 Agreement referred to a Voluntary Early Retirement (VER) Scheme and since then 24 staff members have left the organisation. The Union is seeking the removal of 14 work stations which it claims would free up more space but the Company maintains that this was never part of the 2007 Agreement.
The dispute 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 12th May, 2009, in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 1st September, 2009. A work inspection of the premises took place on the 21st September, 2009
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The workers concerned moved from a building where they enjoyed a larger work area per person, many in one-or two-person offices. They had greater privacy to carry out their duties, many of which involved dealing with external third parties. They now have to deal with a greatly increased noise level, poorer air quality and in some cases lack of natural light.
2. The 14 desks should be removed and the space thus freed should be used to allow greater space for each remaining staff member and separation of desks.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1.The Company has honoured or exceeded all commitments given under the 2007 LRC Agreement. The space allocation provided for the workers concerned is well in excess of that set out in the Safety Health and Welfare at Work Regulations, 2007.
2. The Company clearly stated in January, 2007, that it would not be in a position to agree to a proposal that contained an obligation to increase the space allocations in the new area. Had this not been so the Company would not have agreed to Clause 3
RECOMMENDATION:
Having considered the submissions of the parties and having inspected the accommodation in question, the Court does not recommend concession of the Union's claim.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Raymond McGee
7th October, 2009______________________
CONDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Ciaran O'Neill, Court Secretary.