Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD87318 Case Number: AD8749 Section / Act: S13(9) Parties: IRISH RAIL - and - TSSA |
Appeal by the Company against Rights Commissioner's Recommendation CM/17555 concerning a claim for compensation for loss of earnings in respect of shop supervisory staff employed in the bus maintenance shops in Inchicore works.
Recommendation:
6. The Court upholds the Rights Commissioner's recommendation and
accordingly rejects the appeal.
The Court so decides.
Division: Ms Owens Mr Shiel Ms Ni Mhurchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD87318 THE LABOUR COURT AD49/87
Section 13(9) INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969
APPEAL DECISION NO. 49 OF 1987
Parties: IARNROD EIREANN
and
TRANSPORT SALARIED STAFFS' ASSOCIATION
Subject:
1. Appeal by the Company against Rights Commissioner's
Recommendation CM/17555 concerning a claim for compensation for
loss of earnings in respect of shop supervisory staff employed in
the bus maintenance shops in Inchicore works.
Background:
2. For approximately thirteen years up to November, 1986,
workshop supervisory staff in Inchicore works were required to
attend a weekly production meeting for an hour each Monday
evening. The primary purpose of the meeting was to discuss the
forthcoming week's production in terms of labour, materials,
manufacturing co-ordination, inter-shop service and performance,
together with other problems associated with the various
workshops. As the meeting was held immediately after normal
working hours on a Monday, the supervisors involved were paid one
hour's overtime (time + .50) for attendance. The Company decided to
discontinue these meetings in late 1986 as it claimed that with
the reduction in staff levels and output, matters previously dealt
with at these meetings could be handled in the normal working day.
The Union contended that attendance at these meetings was
mandatory and lodged a claim for compensation for loss of
earnings. The Management rejected this contention and refused to
consider any compensatory payment. As the dispute could not be
resolved at local level the Union referred it to a Rights
Commissioner for investigation and recommendation.
3. The Rights Commissioner, having investigated the dispute on
the 25th March, 1987, issued the following recommendation on the
26th March:
"As attendance at the Monday meetings was mandatory, payment
for them became a regular component of the supervisors'
income and they had reasonable expectations that it would
continue. For that reason they deserve some compensation
but, because of the contraction in business, not on the
scale of the standard formula, I recommend a sum of #300
each".
This recommendation was unacceptable to the Company, which on the
10th April, 1987, appealed it to the Labour Court under Section
13(9) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969. A Court hearing was
held on the 22nd May, 1987.
Company's arguments:
4. (a) The Union has claimed that attendance at the Monday
evening meeting was mandatory. The Company does not
accept this. There was an expectation that there would
be a reasonable attendance by those involved, as is the
case in all overtime working. Nobody was ever
disciplined for not attending the meeting but it was in
the supervisors' own interest to attend as they would
then be fully aware of the working arrangements for the
week.
(b) The function of the workshops is the maintenance of bus
bodies. Due to the input of large numbers of new
vehicles into the fleet there was a dramatic reduction in
the workload in the body maintenance shops (BMS). As a
consequence of this it was necessary to reduce the
workshop staff in line with the reduced workload.
However, it was not possible to effect a pro-rata
reduction in supervisory grades (details supplied to the
Court). The present ratio of supervisory/operative staff
has become seriously imbalanced and is adversely
affecting unit costs. This has the affect of making the
Company uncompetitive and in the long term it jeopardises
job prospects.
(c) As the workshops at BMS and Broadstone are at present
being amalgamated, additional surplus supervisory staff
will become available resulting in a surplus of
approximately 15/20 people in this grade. This is a
matter of serious concern to the Company and the Union
and a solution has yet to be found regarding the
placement of these staff. In the meantime, unlike a
commercial concern, the Company has not suggested
enforced redundancy for the surplus staff. Under these
circumstances, it is the Company's view that it would be
totally unreasonable to continue overtime or be obliged
to pay compensation for cessation of overtime when
surplus staff are available.
(d) In the present climate of reduced workloads for buses the
Company is not of the view that perpetual overtime is a
reasonable expectation. Most overtime is worked to
ensure that essential duties or tasks are carried out.
When these duties, no matter how essential at the time,
are no longer required, the overtime ceases. The fact
that the overtime is worked in these circumstances has
never prevented Rights Commissioners and the Labour Court
from declining claims for compensation when the basic
reason was due to reduced business (details of similar
cases brought before Rights Commissioners supplied to the
Court).
(e) There is also the general question of compensation for
loss of overtime earnings. The financial condition of
the Company or for that matter the country generally,
precludes any payment of compensation. When the various
productivity schemes were being negotiated with the trade
unions, they were constructed so as to contain a
provision for the payment of compensation for loss of
overtime earnings. The cost of these losses were
financed from the savings generated by changes in
procedures and work practices. There is still provision
for the payment of compensation in such cases. This is
not the case here. It is the Company's view that the
Rights Commissioner, while accepting the fact that the
loss of earnings was due to the loss of business, failed
to take account of the current practice that in these
cases compensation is not paid.
Union's arguments:
5. (i) The claim for compensation for loss of earnings was made
because the workers concerned had suffered a reduction
in their take-home pay as a consequence of the
unilateral discontinuation of the meetings in question.
(ii) In the course of the Rights Commissioner's hearing and
indeed in previous discussions with the Company's
representatives, it was recognised that the numbers of
staff supervised by the supervisory members had reduced.
However, it was contended that it was quite impossible,
irrespective of the degree of spare capacity accruing to
the supervisory grades, to discuss in any meaningful way
the issues which had, prior to November 1986, been
discussed at the production meetings. It was recognised
by the Union that the Company had discontinued the
meetings as a cost cutting exercise but it was stressed
that the supervisory members have an entitlement to a
share in that ongoing saving by way of a once off lump
sum payment.
(iii) In that connection it should be noted that the
recommendation to pay each of the supervisors #300 is
somewhat short of the claim lodged. Nevertheless the
recommendation was acceptable to the Union and the
members concerned, particularly as the Rights
Commissioner had taken cognisance of the fact that the
attendance at the production meetings was mandatory.
Decision:
6. The Court upholds the Rights Commissioner's recommendation and
accordingly rejects the appeal.
The Court so decides.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Evelyn Owens
22nd June, 1987 ----------------
DH/PG Deputy Chairman