Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD87355 Case Number: AD8750 Section / Act: S13(9) Parties: IRISH RAIL - and - ITGWU |
Appeal by the Company against Rights Commissioner Recommendation No. CW217/86 concerning a claim for compensation for loss of overtime for a worker.
Recommendation:
5. The Court is satisfied that the loss of overtime arose from a
significant re-organisation of work in the depot and accordingly
is of the view that the Rights Commissioner's Recommendation is
fair in the circumstances.
The Court accordingly upholds the Recommendation and rejects the
appeal.
Division: Ms Owens Mr McHenry Mr O'Murchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD87355 THE LABOUR COURT AD5087
SECTION 13(9) INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969
APPEAL DECISION NO. 50 OF 1987
PARTIES: IARNROD EIREANN
AND
IRISH TRANSPORT & GENERAL WORKERS' UNION
Subject:
1. Appeal by the Company against Rights Commissioner
Recommendation No. CW217/86 concerning a claim for compensation
for loss of overtime for a worker.
Background:
2. The worker concerned is employed as an engineering clerk in
the diesel running shed, Inchicore. Locomotive maintenance and
repairs are carried out there. The work in the shed has been
reorganised since 1985 and work which was previously done on
Saturdays has now been absorbed into Monday to Friday. The Union,
on behalf of the worker claimed compensation for loss of overtime.
The claim was rejected by the Company on the basis that the loss
of earnings was due to a loss of business suffered by the Company
and compensation is not paid in their circumstances. The Union
referred the matter to a Rights Commissioner, who following an
investigation held on 5th March, 1987 issued the following
recommendation dated 20th March, 1987:-
" The basic question which must be addressed is whether the
elimination of the overtime was due to re-organisation or to
a downturn in business. The Company has reasonably
established that overall the workload of the shed has
decreased. There is not necessarily a direct connection
between total shed work and the worker's duties, or if there
is it has not been shown to me. It does seem to me that
there was an element of re-organisation in the elimination of
the regular rostered Saturday work. If I accept that the
worker's colleague received compensation, in part, for extra
duties then I believe that the worker is entitled to
consideration but to a lesser extent than his colleague.
- RECOMMENDATION
I recommend that the Company offers and that the worker
accepts a sum equal to 2/3 of that paid to his colleague in
respect of this dispute."
The Company appealed the Recommendation to the Labour Court under
Section 13(9) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969. A Court
hearing was held on 4th June, 1987.
Company's arguments:
3. (a) The Company maintain that the loss of overtime occurred
because of a fall in the level of rail business both
passenger and freight (details supplied to the Court).
This coupled with the Government directive which
stipulated that expenditure has to be cut in real terms
by 5.7% each year means that there is constant pressure
to reduce costs and also all unnecessary overtime must
be eliminated in order to protect jobs.
(b) Other workers who lost overtime as a result of the fall
off in business and are employed in the running shed,
had their claims for compensation for loss of overtime
earnings rejected by the Court (details supplied to the
Court).
(c) The Company are not required to maintain the level of
earnings of workers from year to year and its
contractual obligations to regular workers are
discharged by meeting the conditions of the normal
working week. It is Company policy not to pay
compensation for loss of earnings where that loss is as
a result of fall off in business, recession, cut back
in capital programme.
(d) The reduction in costs in this case, has not been a
unilateral gain to the Company. The overtime was
discontinued because of the need to reduce costs in
line with the reducing budget for the diesel shed.
Unions's arguments:
4. (i) The worker worked Saturday overtime far in excess of
twenty years, and had, therefore, established a
reasonable ongoing expectation of continuing
involvement in same.
(ii) The work done on Saturday overtime has not been
eliminated. It is now absorbed in a shorter period
of time. What was done in six days is now done in
five. The fact that the work is still required to be
done takes it out of the unnecessary overtime
category.
(iii) The worker has suffered an actual loss of earnings.
(iv) Whilst it may be true to say that there has been a
reduction in train miles worked, and indeed, in the
number of locomotives, there is an ever increasing
amount of work required in the re-stocking of
materials, having regard to the changes in locomotive
types, together with the age of the locomotive etc.
(v) Whilst the Company have refused consistently to pay
compensation for losses of earnings in the present
circumstances, one must pose the question, why pay
one engineering clerk, and refuse to pay the other,
particularly when both have in fact lost earnings.
DECISION:
5. The Court is satisfied that the loss of overtime arose from a
significant re-organisation of work in the depot and accordingly
is of the view that the Rights Commissioner's Recommendation is
fair in the circumstances.
The Court accordingly upholds the Recommendation and rejects the
appeal.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court.
Evelyn Owens
___26th____June,___1987. ___________________
M. D. / M. F. Deputy Chairman