Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD87726 Case Number: AD8792 Section / Act: S13(9) Parties: IRISH RAIL - and - ITGWU |
Appeal by the Union on behalf of a worker against Rights Commissioner's recommendation No. CW88/87, concerning integration payment.
Recommendation:
I recommend that the Union and worker concerned accept that no
compensatory payments are due in this dispute."
(The worker concerned was mentioned by name in the Rights
Commissioner's recommendation).
The recommendation was not acceptable to the Union and on 25th
September, 1987, it was appealed to the Labour Court, under
Section 13(9) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969. A Court
hearing took place on 30th October, 1987.
Union's arguments:
5. (a) The Union believes that the Rights Commissioner erred
in his judgement as his recommendation was issued in
the context of seeing the basis of both payments as
being for "a loss of seniority and promotional
outlets". The consequence of this was that he failed
to take account of the other elements associated with
the basis of the payments.
(b) In the negotiations concerning Station Staff of both
Pearse and Connolly Stations, the Company gave
assurances that staff who applied for jobs, and were
successful in their applications would not lose out on
any compensatory payments which would be paid if they
had remained in their depot at either Pearse or
Connolly Stations.
(c) The need to get staff agreement to transfer to
Connolly, and elsewhere was the predominant basis for
payment of the integration allowance. The worker
concerned should be treated in the same manner as his
colleagues. There were other staff at Connolly
Station who were not affected either directly or
indirectly by the move of staff from Pearse Station
but received payment of the integration allowance.
These were Senior Depotpersons, Barrier Checkers, etc.
(d) The Union further contends that the Rights
Commissioner equated the payment for the loss of the
Guards Certificate to a payment for loss of promotion
prospects. It is clear from communications with the
Company that this payment was made in consideration of
the loss of use of the Guards Certificate, as a result
of the elimination of Guards on the DART Service.
Company's arguments:
6. (a) The worker concerned was not integrated with the staff
at Connolly Station. He was promoted to a higher
graded position as Area Relief Depotperson, where the
rate of pay is the same as that of Senior Depotperson
and Guard and, consequently, he did not suffer as a
result of the withdrawal of Guards from the Suburban
Section, i.e. Howth to Bray.
(b) If he had discharged his duties satisfactorily, as
Area Relief Depotperson, he would have been retained
in that grade. Even in the events which transpired,
he was appointed to a grade of equal status, as Senior
Depotperson at Tara Street.
(c) The Company's offer, made in March, 1983, (details
provided to the Court), expressly provided that the
compensatory payments would not apply to persons
re-settled in higher graded positions.
DECISION:
7. Having considered the submissions made by the parties, the
Court does not find any grounds for altering the Rights
Commissioner's recommendation which it upholds.
The Court so decides.
Division: Mr Fitzgerald Mr Shiel Mr O'Murchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD87726 THE LABOUR COURT AD9287
Section 13(9) INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969
APPEAL DECISION NO. 92 OF 1987
PARTIES: IRISH RAIL
and
IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION
Subject:
1. Appeal by the Union on behalf of a worker against Rights
Commissioner's recommendation No. CW88/87, concerning integration
payment.
Background:
2. In the course of negotiations on the Electrification Scheme,
the Company offered an integration payment of #300 to certain
staff at Pearse Station and other Suburban Rail Stations, who
would be transferred to Connolly Station and integrated with the
Connolly Station Staff as part of that Scheme. It also offered a
compensatory payment of #400 to Depotpersons currently acting as
Guards, on a regular basis, at Connolly, Pearse, and Bray
Stations, as compensation for loss of Guards' positions, which
arose following the introduction of the DART System, on 30th July,
1984. (These offers were amended by the Labour Court in its
Recommendation No. 8911 to #550 and #600, respectively).
3. The Union claimed that the worker concerned was entitled to
the two lump sum payments in respect of disturbance and the loss
of his Guards Certificate. The Union maintain that during the
electrification negotiations, the Company gave a verbal
undertaking that members of staff who took up more senior
positions would be paid as if they had remained in their depot at
either Pearse or Connolly Stations. The worker had been a
Depotperson at Pearse Station (he was subsequently appointed to
the Senior Depotperson grade, Tara Street, as from 8th August,
1985), and all similar staff had received the integration payment
and those qualified had received the Guards Certificate
compensation. The Union argued that in view of the verbal
commitment given by the Company, the worker had every right to be
paid. The Union also suggested that the only logical, yet not
reasonable, cause for the Company to refuse payment is that the
worker was subject to a disciplinary matter within the period of
the electrification negotiations.
4. The Company denied that the worker had been discriminated
against because of a disciplinary matter or that any commitment
had been given by the Company, except for those who might have
lost out over integration and the loss of the Guards Certificate.
An Agreement of March, 1983, covering those persons entitled to
compensation clearly excluded those who had been re-settled in
higher grade positions. At the time the worker had been appointed
as Area Relief Depotperson attached to Connolly Station and was
subsequently appointed as Senior Depotperson at Tara Street. As
the parties could not reach a settlement locally, the matter was
referred to a Rights Commissioner for recommendation. On 31st
July, 1987, he issued the following findings and recommendation -
"Findings
There is no minuted evidence to support the Union's claim of a
commitment by the Company. Similarly, it seems there have been no
payments made which would support such a contention. These
reasons would not necessarily be conclusive. However, the very
basis of the compensatory payments was in part for a loss of
seniority and promotional outlets. It would seem to me to be
contradictory for the worker concerned to succeed in his claims
when he had already achieved a promotional outlet, and when the
payments were designed to compensate those persons with lessened
access to higher payments.
Recommendation
I recommend that the Union and worker concerned accept that no
compensatory payments are due in this dispute."
(The worker concerned was mentioned by name in the Rights
Commissioner's recommendation).
The recommendation was not acceptable to the Union and on 25th
September, 1987, it was appealed to the Labour Court, under
Section 13(9) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969. A Court
hearing took place on 30th October, 1987.
Union's arguments:
5. (a) The Union believes that the Rights Commissioner erred
in his judgement as his recommendation was issued in
the context of seeing the basis of both payments as
being for "a loss of seniority and promotional
outlets". The consequence of this was that he failed
to take account of the other elements associated with
the basis of the payments.
(b) In the negotiations concerning Station Staff of both
Pearse and Connolly Stations, the Company gave
assurances that staff who applied for jobs, and were
successful in their applications would not lose out on
any compensatory payments which would be paid if they
had remained in their depot at either Pearse or
Connolly Stations.
(c) The need to get staff agreement to transfer to
Connolly, and elsewhere was the predominant basis for
payment of the integration allowance. The worker
concerned should be treated in the same manner as his
colleagues. There were other staff at Connolly
Station who were not affected either directly or
indirectly by the move of staff from Pearse Station
but received payment of the integration allowance.
These were Senior Depotpersons, Barrier Checkers, etc.
(d) The Union further contends that the Rights
Commissioner equated the payment for the loss of the
Guards Certificate to a payment for loss of promotion
prospects. It is clear from communications with the
Company that this payment was made in consideration of
the loss of use of the Guards Certificate, as a result
of the elimination of Guards on the DART Service.
Company's arguments:
6. (a) The worker concerned was not integrated with the staff
at Connolly Station. He was promoted to a higher
graded position as Area Relief Depotperson, where the
rate of pay is the same as that of Senior Depotperson
and Guard and, consequently, he did not suffer as a
result of the withdrawal of Guards from the Suburban
Section, i.e. Howth to Bray.
(b) If he had discharged his duties satisfactorily, as
Area Relief Depotperson, he would have been retained
in that grade. Even in the events which transpired,
he was appointed to a grade of equal status, as Senior
Depotperson at Tara Street.
(c) The Company's offer, made in March, 1983, (details
provided to the Court), expressly provided that the
compensatory payments would not apply to persons
re-settled in higher graded positions.
DECISION:
7. Having considered the submissions made by the parties, the
Court does not find any grounds for altering the Rights
Commissioner's recommendation which it upholds.
The Court so decides.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
13th November, 1987 Nicholas Fitzgerald
B.O'N./P.W. Deputy Chairman