INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990
EASONS (TALBOT STREET)
- AND -
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
Chairman: Ms Jenkinson
Employer Member: Mr McHenry
Worker Member: Mr Rorke
1. Claim for inconvenience during renovations of Talbot Street branch.
2. The dispute before the Court concerns a claim by the Union on behalf of eight of its members employed by Easons, Talbot Street, for compensation for the inconvenience caused during renovations to its new premises next door.
Renovations took place between August, 1998 and December, 1998. The Union claims that during this period the workers concerned were expected to work under difficult and dangerous conditions. The Company maintains that most of the work was done outside trading hours and that the inconvenience caused to staff was minimal.
The issue was discussed at local level but could not be resolved.
The dispute was the subject of a conciliation conference under the auspices of the Labour Relations Commission on the 18th of February, 1999. As agreement was not reached the dispute was referred to the Labour Court on the 22nd of March, 1999, in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 31st of May, 1999.
3. 1. During renovations staff were expected to work in difficult and dangerous conditions. There was constant noise and an amount of dust. They had to step over wires and building equipment.
2. The lift was out of action for a period and staff were required to use the stairs to carry stock.
3. Other employments adequately compensated their staff in similar situations. The Union is seeking a once-off payment of £400 for the inconvenience caused during the renovations.
4. 1. The inconvenience caused to staff during the renovations was minimal as most of the work was carried out outside trading hours.
2. While the lifts were out of action the stock was opened on the shop floor. Staff were required to carry very little stock via the stairs.
3. The Company offered to contribute £200 to the staff Christmas party and this was rejected by the Union.
The Court considered the written and oral submissions of the parties and is of the view that the level of disruption caused to the claimants during the refurbishment was minimal and of a short duration. The Court recommends that the offer by the Company should be increased to £350 and should be paid into a fund to be used as the staff consider appropriate.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
17th June, 1999______________________
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Gerardine Buckley, Court Secretary.