Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD87669 Case Number: LCR11531 Section / Act: S67 Parties: IRISH RAIL - and - ITGWU |
Claim for compensation for loss of earnings on behalf of 4 signalmen in the suburban Central Traffic Control (C.T.C.) signal cabin.
Recommendation:
5. The Court having considered the submissions by the parties,
does not consider that the circumstances surrounding the
appointment of the workers here concerned to their positions in
the C.T.C. signal cabin comes within the terms of paragraph 7 of
the agreement covering guards, signalmen, and station staff within
the Dublin Suburban Electrification Scheme.
The Court therefore rejects the claim as made by the Union.
Division: Ms Owens Mr McHenry Mr Walsh
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD87669 RECOMMENDATION NO.LCR11531
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 67
PARTIES: IRISH RAIL
AND
IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Claim for compensation for loss of earnings on behalf of 4
signalmen in the suburban Central Traffic Control (C.T.C.) signal
cabin.
BACKGROUND:
2. In the negotiations on the electrification scheme on the
Howth/Bray suburban rail it was agreed that compensation for loss
of earnings on the terms of the Rail Operative Productivity Scheme
would be paid to workers where a loss situation occured. As part
of the electrification scheme a total of 11 signalmen were
appointed to the C.T.C. signal cabin at Connolly Station. The
rate of pay, in the C.T.C. centre, is much higher than at any
other signal cabin throughout the system. In December, 1985, a
claim for compensation for loss of earnings on behalf of 4 workers
was lodged with the Company by the Union. The Union based the
claim on the alteration of the shifts which the workers were now
required to work. The claim was rejected by the Company. A
number of meetings were held at local level without agreement
being reached. The matter was referred to the conciliation
service of the Labour Court on 11th November, 1986. Conciliation
conferences were held on 19th January, 1987 and 28th April, 1987.
As no agreement was possible both parties requested an
investigation and recommendation from the Labour Court on 3rd
September, 1987. A Court hearing was held on 29th October, 1987.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. Most of the workers concerned worked a three cycle shift
and in one case a four cycle shift. They are all working a
five cycle shift now. It therefore stands to reason that the
higher earnings were obtained on the basis of one in three or
one in four, as against one in five presently. The fact that
there was a higher rate of pay for the CTC operator in no way
reduces their entitlement to compensation, as the formula
provides for comparison of hours and therefore does not permit
reference to hourly rates.
3. 2. The Company at conciliation argued that because each of
the signalmen concerned had applied for training in the job,
they therefore self imposed their losses. This cannot be
taken into account when one considers the fact that there is
no specific provision in the loss of earnings formula to
preclude payment of compensation for loss of earnings in such
a situation. The Union contend that it behoved the Company to
provide for same in the agreement, if they intended to use it.
3. 3. In the negotiations which preceded the introduction of the
electrification scheme, it was the Company who insisted on the
interested staff members applying for training in the jobs
they were interested in. It is therefore unreasonable of the
Company now to refuse to pay compensation where losses accrue,
consequent on their appointment to the job.
4. There are a number of criteria used by the Court in
determining if an entitlement to compensation exists and these
are: re-organisation must occur, reasonable ongoing
expectation of higher earnings must exist and an actual loss
must occur. All three criteria exist in the case before the
Court.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. None of the workers concerned became surplus in their
original positions as a result of the introduction of the
electrification scheme. They were applicants for and were
successful in obtaining the higher graded positions in the
CTC signal cabin. Had the workers chosen they could have
remained in their original positions and the introduction of
the electrification scheme would not have affected them.
2. The workers concerned did not suffer any loss of earnings
as a result of the introduction of the electrification scheme
within the terms of the agreement on the payment for
compensation for loss of earnings. Payment of compensation
for loss of earnings, must be as a direct result of new
conditions imposed on a worker by the Company, as a result of
a re-organisation or productivity scheme.
3. The Company is satisfied that there is no ground,
whatsoever, for payment of compensation in this case. If
compensation were paid it would be a raddical departure from
previous practice and have very serious repercussive effects
for the Company, by way of extension of claims for
compensation.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. The Court having considered the submissions by the parties,
does not consider that the circumstances surrounding the
appointment of the workers here concerned to their positions in
the C.T.C. signal cabin comes within the terms of paragraph 7 of
the agreement covering guards, signalmen, and station staff within
the Dublin Suburban Electrification Scheme.
The Court therefore rejects the claim as made by the Union.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court.
Evelyn Owens
__18th__November,___1987. ___________________
M. D. / M. F. Deputy Chairman.