Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD87304 Case Number: LCR11232 Section / Act: S67 Parties: CIE - and - ITGWU |
Claim, by the Union of behalf of 3 signalmen, for a spread-over payment.
Recommendation:
5. The Court is satisfied that the present arrangement arose
initially through mutual agreement and it is significant that a
specific inclusion/exclusion clause for the cabin was not made
when the National Agreement was concluded in 1968. However,
general developments since then make the application of the
National Agreement terms appropriate now. Accordingly the Court
recommends the application of spread-over payments to the
claimants with effect from 1st June, 1987.
Division: Mr Fitzgerald Mr Heffernan Mr Walsh
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD87304 THE LABOUR COURT LCR11232
CC87151 INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
RECOMMENDATION NO. 11232
PARTIES: IRISH RAIL
and
IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION
Subject:
1. Claim, by the Union of behalf of 3 signalmen, for a
spread-over payment.
Background:
2. There are three signalmen assigned to the Church Road
signal-box. Every third Sunday, one of the signalmen is required
to complete his shift at 6 a.m. and return to duty at 4 p.m. The
Union, in May, 1986, lodged a claim that an additional spread-over
payment should be made as a result of the inconvenience to the
signalmen concerned. The Union cited the example of a similar
signal-box at West Road, where it alleged a spread-over payment is
made. Similarly, the Union claimed a spread over payment is made
at the new C.T.C. signal-box in Connolly Station. The Company
indicated that the present arrangements in relation to the
operation of the Church Road signal-box were introduced at the
request of the signalmen working there and was therefore, part of
a local agreement. As a result, the Company declined to concede
the claim.
There being no agreement reached at a local level, the matter was
referred on 23rd January, 1987, to the conciliation service of the
Labour Court. At a conciliation conference on 10th March, 1987,
the Union maintained its position and the Company argued that no
spread-over payment is made at West Road and that the C.T.C.
signal-box is not in any way comparable with the Church Road
signal-box. The Company also indicated that they could not
introduce a spread-over payment in an area where it has not
existed before. There being no resolution of the issue the
parties agreed on 10th April, 1987, to refer it to the Labour
Court for investigation and recommendation. A Court hearing took
place on 8th May, 1987.
Union's arguments:
3. (i) The Company's contention that the hours of work, when
introduced, were as a result of an alleged local
agreement is not just cause for the non-payment of the
spread-over. The Company has failed to provide the
Union with a copy of the agreement.
(ii) The Union believes that local agreements, where they
exist, should not supersede National Agreements. The
National Agreement on spread-over payment provides for
payment when a spread-over of more than 12 hours is
worked. (Details provided to the Court). This is
designed to give extra recompense to such staff for
the extra inconvenience such terms of duty impose on
the workers concerned. This Agreement has been the
subject of lengthy negotiations over the years and
must not be interfered with, except where otherwise
agreed by the parties.
(iii) The workers concerned all work hours which qualify
them for such payment. All other signalmen on the
same roster rotation are paid the spread-over,
including the workers who relieve on such duties. The
workers concerned, as a result of the National
Agreement, have had this entitlement since 1968. It
would seem that the application of the Agreement was
overlooked at the time but this should now be
rectified.
Company's arguments:
4. (a) The current working arrangements at the Church Road
signal-box are the result of a local agreement, dating
from, a least, the late 1940's, made with the
signalmen. This arrangement which exists at Church
Road should also exist at West Road, again, by mutual
agreement. However, recently, it has come to light
that, due to a mistake and lack of communication,
signalmen in West Road are incorrectly paid in respect
of double bookings on Sundays. This however, does not
invalidate the mutual agreement or affect this claim.
(b) The arrangement entered into is to the benefit of the
signalmen, insofar as it allows one signalman to have
a day off each Sunday, while the three signalmen
retain their full earnings accruing to the total
coverage provided by that signal-box.
(c) The Company does not believe it would be reasonable to
pay additional money to employees as a result of an
arrangement purely to facilitate these employees and
in circumstances where the Company had other means to
provide coverage in the signal-box on Sundays.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. The Court is satisfied that the present arrangement arose
initially through mutual agreement and it is significant that a
specific inclusion/exclusion clause for the cabin was not made
when the National Agreement was concluded in 1968. However,
general developments since then make the application of the
National Agreement terms appropriate now. Accordingly the Court
recommends the application of spread-over payments to the
claimants with effect from 1st June, 1987.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
8th June, 1987 Nicholas Fitzgerald
B.O'N./P.W. Deputy Chairman