Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD86653 Case Number: AD8683 Section / Act: S13(9) Parties: CIE - and - NATE |
Appeal against a Rights Commissioner's Recommendation No. CM 16,786 which relates to compensation for loss of earnings due to "Goods Guards" employed at Heuston Depot.
Recommendation:
5. Having regard to the circumstances of this case and
particularly the fact that the co-operation of the guards was
necessary to bring about the operating change from which the
productivity derived with subsequent loss to the guards the Court
is of the opinion that the more approximately correct amount of
compensation is #1,380 and therefore decides that the Rights
Commissioners Recommendation be amended to provide for this
amount.
Division:
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD86653 THE LABOUR COURT AD83/86
Section 13(9)
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
APPEAL DECISION NO. 83 OF 1986
Parties: CORAS IOMPAIR EIREANN
and
RAIL OPERATIVE TRADE UNION GROUP
Subject:
1. Appeal against a Rights Commissioner's Recommendation No. CM
16,786 which relates to compensation for loss of earnings due to
"Goods Guards" employed at Heuston Depot.
Background:
2. Up to approximately four years ago "Goods Guards" were
required to travel by their own means, between Heuston and
Inchicore for the purpose of movement of locomotives between these
depots. As a consequence additional time known as "walking time"
has been incorporated into their rosters. Following a
Productivity Agreement between C.I.E. and locomotive drivers in
1981, one of the elements of which was that drivers would operate
engines without guards on a shed to station basis, it is no longer
necessary for guards to travel on trains for this purpose.
However the Walking Time Allowance continued to be included in
their rosters. The Company proposed changes for economic link
working and the elimination of Walking Time from the rosters to
take effect from 13th January, 1986. Negotiations took place
between the Company and the Rail Operative Trade Union Group on
the question of compensation for loss of earnings for these Goods
Guards. As no agreement could be reached on this issue it was
agreed by both parties to refer the matter to a Rights
Commissioner. Following investigation the Rights Commissioner
isued the following recommendation. "It would be a difficult, and
time consuming exercise for a third party to determine the actual
losses when the parties cannot agree on them. To avoid this, and
as a compromise I recommend that the claim be settled with a
payment of #950 each." The Union under Section 13(9) of the
Industrial Relations Act, 1969 appealed the recommendation to the
Labour Court. A Labour Court hearing took place on 19th
September, 1986.
Union's arguments:
3. (i) There is an agreement based on a productivity deal
made in respect of rail operative staff in the 1970's
that where loss of earnings occur as a result of the
implementation of productivity staff effected will be
compensated to a maximum of #4,000 (details were
supplied to the Court).
(ii) The amount recommended by the Rights Commissioner is
totally inadequate as it was arrived at with no regard
to the agreement.
(iii) The elimination of Walking Time was achievable only
after agreement with the Guards following completion
of a productivity agreement with the drivers which
provided for the limited movement of engines from shed
to station without a guard.
Company's arguments:
4. (a) The elimination of Walking Time is a separate issue
based on a cut back in overtime due to the Company's
critical financial situation, with strict limits being
placed on its Government subsidy. It is not related
to the productivity deal negotiated in the 1970's
which was a self-financing deal, requiring extensive
changes, including increased productivity and
considerable staff reductions.
(b) The freight section, in which the the Goods Guards are
involved, is especially in a vulnerable situation, and
it is essential that that section become viable,
because it is a commercial enterprise, as distinct
from other sectors of the Company's operations, which
contain a social service element.
(c) The loss of earnings claimed by the Union included an
amount in respect of changes in timetable. No
compensation has ever been paid for changes in
timetables, as these changes normally balance
themselves out over a period of time.
(d) The guards concerned have been allowed to retain the
higher earnings in the previous rosters for a
considerably long period of time.
DECISION:
5. Having regard to the circumstances of this case and
particularly the fact that the co-operation of the guards was
necessary to bring about the operating change from which the
productivity derived with subsequent loss to the guards the Court
is of the opinion that the more approximately correct amount of
compensation is #1,380 and therefore decides that the Rights
Commissioners Recommendation be amended to provide for this
amount.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
John O'Connell
___________________________
4th December, 1986. Deputy Chairman.
M.D./J.C.