Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD8614 Case Number: AD8714 Section / Act: S13(9) Parties: - and - |
Appeal by the Union against a Rights Commissioner's Recommendation concerning an alleged loss of earnings by a locomotive driver.
Recommendation:
6. The Court finds that there is no precedent for making up for
lost overtime or mileage earnings for drivers on 'road haulage'.
The Court therefore upholds the Rights Commissioner's
Recommendation and decides accordingly.
Division:
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD 86/14 THE LABOUR COURT AD14/87
Section 13(9) INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1969
APPEAL DECISION NO. 14 OF 1987
Parties: CORAS IOMPAIR EIREANN
and
NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF TRANSPORT EMPLOYEES
Subject:
1. Appeal by the Union against a Rights Commissioner's
Recommendation concerning an alleged loss of earnings by a
locomotive driver.
Background:
2. At the Company's larger locomotive depots (e.g. Inchicore)
locomotive drivers are assigned to different types of operations
(links) which are rated in order of importance - earning potential
can vary from link to link. Drivers are normally promoted from
one link to the next higher link in order of seniorty. Drivers
are required to acquire the necessary "road knowledge" on the
various trips on a link. This requires a period of training.
Normally training takes place in accordance with the driver's
rotation on a link.
3. The driver concerned is employed at the Company's Inchicore
depot. In 1984 he was promoted from the most junior link (pilot
link) to the goods link. In accordance with normal procedure he
was required to acquire "road knowledge". The Union claimed that
as a result of the driver being required to attain "road
knowledge" on a particular line for 2 successive weeks he was
deprived the opportunity of higher earnings on a line with greater
earnings potential and therefore suffered a loss of earnings. The
Union claimed that he should be compensated for this loss. The
Company responded by arguing that the driver's period on acquiring
"road knowledge" was in accordance with a local Company /Union
arrangement (request by the Union) whereby drivers at Inchicore
would be left on "road knowledge" for a number of consecutive
weeks rather than have them acquire the knowledge gradually as
their turn on the link rotation reached the line on which they
were required to get "road knowledge". Therefore, the claim was
not valid. As no agreement could be reached at local level the
matter was referred to a Rights Commissioner who recommended as
follows:-
"From the evidence available to me I can only
conclude that a bona fide, although informal,
agreement was made between Union and C.I.E.,
representatives in Inchicore. Accordingly, when
C.I.E. assigned Driver ---------* to continuous
road knowledge for a fortnight they were acting in
the best of good faith. Therefore his loss came
about as a result of an arrangement conceded by
the Company to his Union and in that event C.I.E.
cannot be held responsible for any consequent loss
to him".
(* The driver was named in the Rights Commissioner's
Recommendation).
The Union rejected the Rights Commissioner's Recommendation and by
letter dated 3rd January, 1986, referred the matter to the Labour
Court for investigation and decision under Section 13(9) of the
Industrial Relations Act, 1969. A Court hearing took place on 3rd
February, 1986.
Union's arguments:
4. (i) The existence or otherwise of a local agreement on
"road knowledge" is being overemphasised. The loss of
earnings is the issue in this case.
(ii) The driver was taken from a line on which he was
entitled to mileage payments and overtime and assigned
to a line for "road knowledge" on which he only
received basic pay. As a result he lost the
equivalent of 37 hours and 10 minutes in earnings.
(iii) It is custom and practice for a worker to maintain his
average earnings if he is requested to leave his
rostered duties for any period of time.
Company's arguments:
5. (a) It would be unreasonable to change a system at the
behest of the Union, and, at the same time, have to
pay additional money by way of compensation.
(b) During local discussions which resulted in the changed
system in Inchicore, there was no question of payment
of compensation for any individual loss which might
arise. The Company would not have agreed to the
change otherwise.
(c) The full facts of the case were put before the Rights
Commissioner and fully assessed by him.
DECISION:
6. The Court finds that there is no precedent for making up for
lost overtime or mileage earnings for drivers on 'road haulage'.
The Court therefore upholds the Rights Commissioner's
Recommendation and decides accordingly.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
John M Horgan
10th Febraury, 1987 --------------
D.M./U.S. Chairman