Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD86820 Case Number: LCR10863 Section / Act: S67 Parties: C.I.E. - and - ICTU |
Claim on behalf of 22 craftsmen and engineering operatives for disturbance allowance or integration payment following their transfer from the body maintenance shops (BMS) Inchicore to various rail workshops in Inchicore.
Recommendation:
6. The Court, having considered the submissions made by the
parties is aware that the question of the integration of road and
rail staff is a separate issue with far reaching implications.
/.........
The Court has dealt with this case solely on the basis of the
claim before it for disturbance payments. Since the physical
disturbance involved in this particular transfer is minimal, it
does not in the Court's view merit a disturbance payment.
The Court accordingly does not recommend concession of the claim.
Division: Mr Fitzgerald Mr Shiel Mr O'Murchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD86820 THE LABOUR COURT LCR10863
CC86986 INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
RECOMMENDATION NO. 10863
PARTIES: CORAS IOMPAIR EIREANN
and
C.I.E. SHOPWORKERS' TRADE UNION GROUP
Subject:
1. Claim on behalf of 22 craftsmen and engineering operatives for
disturbance allowance or integration payment following their
transfer from the body maintenance shops (BMS) Inchicore to
various rail workshops in Inchicore.
Background:
2. The Company's body maintenance shop (BMS), where overhaul body
work and heavy casualty work on the Company's bus fleet takes
place, and the Company's rail shops are located in the Company's
Inchicore complex. A decrease in the level of work in the BMS and
an increase in the level of work in the rail shops has occurred in
recent times. Accordingly, the Company commenced transferring the
workers concerned in early 1986 from the BMS to its rail shops.
3. In February, 1986, the Group, on behalf of the workers
concerned, served a claim on the Company for the payment of a
disturbance allowance or an integration payment. The Company
rejected the claim and as no agreement could be reached at local
level the matter was referred, on 5th June, 1986, to the
conciliation service of the Labour Court. Following a
conciliation conference, which was held on 26th August, 1986
and which failed to resolve the matter, the claim was referred to
the Labour Court on 22nd October for investigation and
recommendation. The Court investigated the dispute on 14th
November, 1986.
Union's arguments:
4. (i) Since its location on the Inchicore site in 1974 the
BMS has always been regarded as a separate location
from the rail shops. The workers in the two locations
enjoy different conditions of employment (details
supplied to the Court) and up to the transfers in
question no transfer of workers had previously taken
place between the two locations. In the interest of
future good industrial relations therefore, the Group
feels that the distinction between the two locations
should be maintained.
(ii) In view of the fact that the transfers in question
have taken place (albeit under protest) the Group must
seek appropriate financial compensation for the
workers involved. In this regard, the Group has
sought the payment to them of a disturbance allowance.
However this has been ruled out by the Company on the
basis that the two locations are within the same
complex. Therefore, the Group is now seeking an
integration payment for the workers. Precedents exist
for such payments in similar circumstances in the
Company. Integration payments have been made in the
recent past to traffic staff and shopworkers employed
at Pearse and Connolly stations.
(iii) In all the circumstances the claim for integration
payments to these workers is a valid one and should be
conceded.
Company's arguments:
5. (a) The transfers are within the confines of Inchicore
works, a single location, where transfers from shop to
shop are a common feature and have been for many
years. Such transfers are a normal feature of
industry in general.
(b) Provision has been made to take account of the extra
time involved in reaching the new location.
(c) The transfers were made to maintain the workers
involved in employment - the alternative was to pay
them off.
(d) The workers involved remain on day work. Their rates
of pay and working conditions have not changed; their
earning potential has not been impaired and they
continue to carry out the same type of work.
(e) The transfer of staff from one shop to another without
a monetary penalty on the Company is essential for the
efficient day to day running of a large workshop
complex where varying workloads and absenteeism make
it necessary to balance workload and staff numbers.
(f) A claim in the past for the payment of a disturbance
allowance is respect of other workers transferred
within the Inchicore complex was rejected by a Rights
Commissioner.
(g) Concession of the claim could have repercussive
effects by way of similar claims from other groups of
workers. Given the financial position of the Company
the cost of concession of such claims could not be
sustained.
(h) The payment of disturbance allowances in the public
sector has been ruled out by the Government.
(i) In all the circumstances the Group's claim must be
rejected.
RECOMMENDATION:
6. The Court, having considered the submissions made by the
parties is aware that the question of the integration of road and
rail staff is a separate issue with far reaching implications.
/.........
The Court has dealt with this case solely on the basis of the
claim before it for disturbance payments. Since the physical
disturbance involved in this particular transfer is minimal, it
does not in the Court's view merit a disturbance payment.
The Court accordingly does not recommend concession of the claim.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
16th December, 1986 Nicholas Fitzgerald
T.McC./P. Deputy Chairman