INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2001
SECTION 20(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969
- AND -
(REPRESENTED BY TRANSPORT SALARIED STAFFS' ASSOCIATION)
Chairman: Mr Duffy
Employer Member: Mr Keogh
Worker Member: Ms Ni Mhurchu
1. Claim for compensation due to inconvenience during construction development.
2. In 1998, the Company decided to develop the 'Midland Yard' at North Wall and, as a result, a number of staff were re-located to temporary offices. Following talks with the assistance of the Labour Relations Commission (LRC), an agreement was reached in March, 1999, regarding compensation payments for staff affected. These ranged in value from £333 ( 422.82 Euros) each for 17 clerical staff to £4,200 ( 5332.92 Euros) each for 14 workers in unit load.
The worker concerned was, and still is, attached to the freight office and received £333. The Union's claim is that the worker spent half of his time working outdoors in difficult conditions, and that he should have received £4,200 in compensation. (The Company pointed out at the hearing that the claim was originally for £1,750 ( 2222.04 Euros) but had now increased to its present value.)
The Union referred the case to the Labour Court on the 22nd of March, 2001, in accordance with Section 20(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 19th of June, 2001.
3. 1. The worker spent half of the time in question working outside in very difficult conditions. Every morning and afternoon he had to undertake a stock-take which was conducted outdoors. He was also responsible for checking the paperwork on trucks going into and out of the yards. These were the working same conditions as the unit load staff.
2. It was the Company's responsibility to see that people were compensated properly for the disturbance caused. The worker had written to the Union in December, 1998, stating that he was wrongly categorised.
4. 1. The Union decided on the amount of money to be paid to each worker involved in the claim, including the £333 payment to the worker concerned. The Company properly rejected further claims - firstly for £1,750 and then £4,200 - as it was outside the agreement reached at the LRC.
2. Conceding the claim would give rise to knock-on claims.
Having considered the submissions of the parties, the Court is satisfied that the amount paid to the claimant was in accordance with the agreement negotiated and agreed between the parties.
Accordingly, the Court does not recommend concession of the Union's claim
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
29th June, 2001______________________
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Ciaran O'Neill, Court Secretary.