Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD87861 Case Number: AD8798 Section / Act: S13(9) Parties: IRISH RAIL - and - AMALGAMATED TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION |
Appeal, by the Company, against a Rights Commissioners Recommendation concerning the retention of marking out allowance.
Recommendation:
5. Having considered the submissions made by the parties, the
Court in view of the particular nature of the allowance is of the
opinion that the Rights Commissioner's Recommendation should
stand.
The Court so decides.
Division: Mr O'Connell Mr McHenry Ms Ni Mhurchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD87861 APPEAL DECISION NO. AD9887
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 13(9)
PARTIES: IRISH RAIL
and
AMALGAMATED TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Appeal, by the Company, against a Rights Commissioners
Recommendation concerning the retention of marking out allowance.
BACKGROUND:
2. This appeal concerns two workers, employed as bodymakers by
the Company. On 5th November, 1986 the workers were transferred
from the Body Maintenance Shop (BMS) where they had been engaged
on "marking out" duties to the Carriage Building Shop (CBS). The
Union claimed that the workers should retain the "marking out"
allowance of 3.53 per week, although they were no longer engaged
on marking out duties. The Company rejected the claim. No
agreement was reached through local negotiations and the issue was
referred to a Rights Commissioner. On 21st May, 1987 the Rights
Commissioner issued his Recommendation as follows:
"In the light of the above, I recommend that C.I.E. pay to
the workers concerned the sum of #200 each by way of
compensation following transfer from the body maintenance
shop to the carriage building programme, and in the context
that a loss in income is suffered. I recommend also that
the workers accept this payment in full and final settlement
of the claim on the Company. This payment to be made
without precedent and without prejudice.
(The workers concerned were named in the Rights
Commissioner's Recommendation).
On 9th November, 1987 the Company appealed the Rights
Commissioner's Recommendation to the Labour Court in accordance
with Section 13(9) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969. The
Court heard the appeal on 7th December, 1987.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The introduction of a new bus fleet resulted in the level
of repair work in the B.M.S. being gradually reduced. The
workload dropped to such an extent that waiting time was
created in the B.M.S. The excess staff in the B.M.S. were
transferred to the C.B.S. on a new carriage building
programme. This was done to maintain the surplus B.M.S.
staff in employment.
2. Had the workers remained in the B.M.S. they would not
have continued on "marking out" work because of the reduction
of workload in that shop. The workers have not been replaced
on a full time basis in the B.M.S. When it is necessary to
mark out work a bodymaker is paid the allowance while he
carries out the work.
3. On their transfer to the C.B.S. the workers could have
availed of regular overtime. Between the 10th November, 1986
and 27th November, 1987 one of the workers declined to work
the equivalent of 288 equated hours overtime valued at #1406.
The second worker involved declined to work the equivalent of
258 equated hours overtime valued at #1088. The Company
should not be obliged to pay compensation for loss of
earnings when the workers were given the opportunity to
improve their earnings. The Rights Commissioners
Recommendation was made in the context that a loss of income
was suffered. The loss of the marking out allowance for one
year is valued at #183.56 while the workers declined to work
overtime to the value of #1406 and #1088.
4. The Rights Commissioners Recommendation could lead to
repercussive claims from other staff who are on or have been
in receipt of other special allowances.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The workers both carried the "marking-out" rate for a
number of years before they were transferred. When people
were appointed to "markers-out" positions it was considered
to be a promotion with a potential of being further promoted.
Appointments to "markers-out" position were always permanent
and if any worker was transferred to other bodybuilding work
they always retained the "markers-out" rate.
2. When the Company's section in Abercorn Road was closed
down a worker, who was a chargehand, was transferred to the
B.M.S. and subsequently transferred to the rail workshops.
This worker retained his chargehand's rate in both shops
while carrying out the work of a bodymaker.
3. The Union has no knowledge of any "marker-out" losing his
rate once he had been appointed, irrespective as to whether
he was working as a "marker-out" or as a bodymaker.
DECISION:
5. Having considered the submissions made by the parties, the
Court in view of the particular nature of the allowance is of the
opinion that the Rights Commissioner's Recommendation should
stand.
The Court so decides.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
John O'Connell
______________________
4th January, 1988. Deputy Chairman
T.O'M/J.C.