Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD87482 Case Number: LCR11343 Section / Act: S67 Parties: IRISH RAIL - and - CIE TRADE UNION GROUP |
Claim for compensation for loss of earnings for workers employed in the signal and electrical department.
Recommendation:
5. The Court is not satisfied that the claim, as presented,
falls within the terms of Labour Court Recommendation No. 9907
which refers specifically to structured overtime and accordingly
does not recommend concession of the claim.
Division: Ms Owens Mr Collins Mr Devine
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD87482 THE LABOUR COURT LCR11343
CC8778 INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR11343
PARTIES: IARNROD EIREANN
AND
C.I.E. TRADE UNION GROUPS
SUBJECT:
1. Claim for compensation for loss of earnings for workers
employed in the signal and electrical department.
BACKGROUND:
2. In August, 1985 a claim for compensation for loss of earnings
on behalf of 4 workers employed in the signal and electrical
section in Cork was investigated by the Labour Court. Following
its investigation the Court issued Labour Court Recommendation No.
9907 (attached to this Recommendation as an appendix) which
recommended that the workers concerned should be compensated on
the basis of 2.50 times the actual loss subject to a maximum of
#4,000. Subsequent to the issue of that recommendation a number
of meetings took place between the Company and the Unions
regarding a claim for payment of similar compensation to other
workers employed in the signal and electrical section throughout
the country. This claim was rejected by the Company and the
matter was referred to the conciliation service of the Labour
Court on 8th January, 1987. A conciliation conference was held on
7th April, 1987 following a response to an invitation to attend
received on 20th March, 1987. As no agreement was possible both
parties agreed to a referral to the Labour Court for investigation
and recommendation on 7th May, 1987. A Court hearing was held on
20th July, 1987 a date suitable to both parties.
Groups' arguments:
3. (a) The workers in the rail operative and shopworkers
groups' are only seeking to be dealt with in a similar
fashion as their colleagues in Cork as they have
suffered in some cases a more drastic cutback in their
earnings than the workers in Cork. They find it hard
to accept that they are not, according to the Company,
covered by the terms of Labour Court Recommendation No.
9907.
(b) The workers concerned are employed on renewals,
maintenance, project work and emergency call-out at
various locations around the country and have enjoyed
continuous overtime, in some cases, for anything up to
25 years. They carry out similar type work to their
colleagues in Cork.
(c) The Company must take responsibility for the
re-organisation they have undertaken and as any
reasonable employer would do they should compensate
their workers for loss of earnings to cushion the
effect of the drastic cutback in their living
standards. As already stated, the workers have been on
continuous overtime for a long period of time.
Accordingly they have a lifestyle commensurate with
their earnings.
(d) The workers concerned satisfy the normal criteria for
payment of compensation for loss of overtime earnings
i.e. they have suffered an actual loss of earnings and
they also had a reasonable ongoing expectation of
continued involvement in overtime.
Company's arguments:
4. (i) The Company implemented the terms of Labour Court
Recommendation No. 9907 in respect of the 4 workers
in Cork and also in a number of similar cases where
workers had been rostered for duty at weekends on a
regular basis and this weekend work has been
discontinued. The Company has refused to extend the
terms of the recommendation to other workers in the
signal and electrical department as the circumstances
of the reduction in overtime are completely different
to that of the 4 workers in Cork (details supplied to
the Court).
(ii) The overtime worked by the workers covered by this
claim is of a fortuitous and variable nature dictated
by the levels of capital and renewals works in
progress (details supplied to the Court). These
workers can have no expectation that any particular
level of overtime will continue. There are no valid
grounds for paying compensation for loss of overtime
earnings when a reduction in overtime is brought
about by financial constraints and this has
previously been recognised by the Court.
(iii) There has been a substantial decline in rail freight
revenue and the reduced level of activity allows some
maintenance work to be carried out during normal
working hours, which would have not been possible
heretofore. In such a situation the Company must
achieve a reduction in costs and there are no valid
grounds for payment of compensation for loss of
earnings which arise directly from loss of business.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. The Court is not satisfied that the claim, as presented,
falls within the terms of Labour Court Recommendation No. 9907
which refers specifically to structured overtime and accordingly
does not recommend concession of the claim.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court.
Evelyn Owens
___________________
31st July, 1987.
M. D. / M. F. Deputy Chairman.
APPENDIX I
D85151 THE LABOUR COURT LCR9907
25367 INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR9907
PARTIES: CORAS IOMPAIR EIREANN, CORK
AND
IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Claim, on behalf of 4 workers, for compensation for loss of
earnings.
BACKGROUND:
2. The workers concerned are employed in the signal and
electrical section of the chief civil engineers department. In
January, 1985 the Company informed the Union of its intention to
curtail weekend overtime working. The Union, in response, claimed
compensation of 2.50 times the annual loss. The Union has
calculated the weekly loss in overtime working to be as follows:-
signal operatives - 2 workers - # 45.85 each pw.
engineering operative grade 1 - 1 worker - #101.15 p. w.
signal operative class 1 - 1 worker - # 99.29 p. w.
The claim was rejected by the Company and the case was referred to
the conciliation service of the Labour Court on 22nd January,
1985. Conciliation conferences were held on 14th February and
23rd May, 1985 and as no agreement could be reached the matter was
referred to the Court for investigation and recommendation. The
case was heard by the Court on 17th July, 1985 in Cork.
Union's arguments:
3. (i) The Company had no discussions or consultations with
the Unions prior to implementing the reduced overtime
and this was a serious departure from agreed
procedure.
(ii) Weekend working in the signal and electrical section
of the Company has always been performed in the
interests of safety as any problem arising in this
area must be dealt with as soon as possible. The
Company, by its action, has disregarded this safety
aspect.
(iii) An expectation of higher earnings had been created by
the continued operation of the overtime over a
prolonged period and, therefore, compensation is
justified.
(iv) The Company, by rejecting this claim, is breaking the
standard practice of payment of compensation as
provided for under the terms of the rail operative
productivity agreement.
Company's arguments:
4. (a) Due to a cut in the Company's budget and a drop in
business it is essential that savings be effected and
to this end overtime working, in all sections of the
Company's operations, has been curtailed or eliminated
(details of the Company's losses supplied to the
Court).
(b) In the signal and electrical section it has been
traditional to have a high level of overtime working,
however, it is hoped that the necessary budget savings
can be accomplished without the total elimination of
the overtime or the loss of any jobs.
(c) Failure to achieve a consistent reduction in budget
expenditure throughout the current year, by controlling
the level of overtime working, will inevitably lead to
job losses.
(d) Concession of this claim would have serious
repercussive effects both in the signal and electrical
section and throughout the country.
(e) The result of a survey, to assess the change in the
level of overtime worked, found that, while that there
was a reduction in overtime, there was still a
substantial amount of overtime worked.
(f) The Labour Court has, on a number of occasions,
rejected claims for compensation for loss of overtime
where the cut-back was due to loss of revenue and drop
in business.
(g) The present agreement between the Company and the Union
is that compensation for loss of earnings is only paid
as a result of re-organisation, and productivity deals
that result in greater efficiency within the Company.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. The Court is not satisfied that this reduction of overtime is
due to any great extent to loss of business. This was structured
overtime by the Company and consequently the Court is of the view
that compensation should be paid for the sudden substantial drop
in earnings.
The Court accordingly recommends that compensation should be paid
to the claimants calculated on the basis of 2.50 times the annual
loss with a maximum of #4,000.
~
By Order of the Labour Court
(Signed) F. McGlynn
___22nd__August,__1985. Officer of the Court.
L. L. / P.