Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD87556 Case Number: AD8771 Section / Act: S13(9) Parties: IRISH RAIL - and - NATE |
Appeal, by the Association against Rights Commissioner's recommendation No. CM/17810, concerning the promotion of a Depotman to a Senior Depotman vacancy.
Recommendation:
7. The Court, having considered the submissions made by the
parties, upholds the Rights Commissioner's recommendation.
The Court so decides.
Division: Mr Fitzgerald Mr Heffernan Ms Ni Mhurchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD87556 THE LABOUR COURT AD71/87
Section 13(9) INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969
APPEAL DECISION NO. 71 OF 1987
PARTIES: IRISH RAIL
and
NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF TRANSPORT EMPLOYEES
Subject:
1. Appeal, by the Association against Rights Commissioner's
recommendation No. CM/17810, concerning the promotion of a
Depotman to a Senior Depotman vacancy.
Background:
2. Until recently Portarlington station was staffed by two Senior
Depotmen and two Depotmen. A review of staff levels at the
station indicated to the Company that only one Depotman is
required. Following the review, one of the Senior Depotmen
applied to retire under Voluntary Severance terms. This appeared
to the Company to be an ideal opportunity to absorb the spare
capacity of one Depotman, on a promotional basis, and the two
Depotmen were invited to apply for the promotional position.
However, neither wished to apply for the position and the Senior
Depotman concerned could not be allowed to retire. The two
Depotmen also refused to train in booking office duties, in order
to help with relief duties.
3. In March, 1987, the Depotmen were advised that one Senior
Depotman would be retiring in June, 1987, at 65 years of age,
following which staff levels at the station would be reduced to
three. The Depotmen were again invited to apply for the
promotional vacancy. The appointment of either Depotman would
reduce staff levels to the required three. The Company said its
only alternative was to appoint someone from another station, but
that would require that one of the two Depotmen would have to be
transferred to Portlaoise because the Company need only three
staff in Portarlington. The Association, however, maintained that
there is a requirement for two Depotmen in the station, given the
duties and responsibilities of the Depotmen. The matter was
referred to a Rights Commissioner, with whom a meeting was held on
17th June, 1987.
4. On 18th June, 1987, the Rights Commissioner issued the
following recommendation -
"It is remarkable that neither depotperson is interested
in promotion and I would ask them to re-consider this.
To give them enough time to do so and also in order to
accommodate the Company's needs I recommend that they
make themselves available immediately for training as
reliefs. When they are trained, one of them should
rotate with the other as Senior Depotperson every second
week for a trial period of three months. For the week
on duty the depotperson would qualify for the superior
duty allowance.
A few weeks before the three months' trial period has
expired Union and Company should review the position, by
which time one or both will hopefully have decided to
apply for the substantive post".
The Rights Commissioner's recommendation was not acceptable to the
Association and on 9th July, 1987, the Association appealed it to
the Labour Court, under Section 13(9) of the Industrial Relations
Act, 1969. A Court hearing took place on 11th August, 1987, in
Portlaoise.
Association's arguments:
5. (i) The Union believes that the Rights Commissioner did
not take fully into consideration the duties and
responsibilities of the Depotmen. There are at least
25 trains per day from 7 a.m. to 9.30 p.m. and
passengers depend on the presence of a Depotman on the
platform, to answer queries and look after their
needs. Indeed, this particular station deals with a
lot of elderly people and invalids who are helped
across the tracks as they cannot use the foot-bridge.
This is a unique situation.
(ii) It has always been felt that in terms of the Company's
redevelopment and rationalisation programme, there
would be no compulsory redundancies or transfer of
staff against their will. There has always been an
acceptance by both sides that where a person refused
to accept promotion or to do a higher duty job, then
he would be put back to the end of the list for
promotional purposes and no disciplinary action would
be taken against him.
(iii) The Depotmen see the need for a Depotman to be
employed at the station full-time and on principle
they reject the suggestion that they train to do
relief duty in the booking office. There are a number
of other applicants for this job and, therefore, they
cannot understand why they are being forced against
their will into a grade that they do not aspire to,
especially when one of the other applicants is already
in the Senior Depotman grade.
Company's arguments:
6. (a) Portarlington station requires only three staff.
Thirty-one passenger trains daily and nineteen on
Sundays, stop at Kildare station, which is staffed by
two Senior Depotmen and one Depotman. Only
twenty-eight passenger trains daily and sixteen on
Sundays stop at Portarlington station, staffed by two
Senior Depotmen and two Depotmen.
(b) In late 1985, a request was made by Senior Depotmen at
the station to have platform assistance on Sunday
evenings. The Depotmen refused the Company's request,
and consequently sixteen trains operate on Sundays
without platform assistance at the station.
(c) Since the retirement of one of the Senior Depotmen, in
June, 1987, relief in the station is being provided
from Kildare because the Depotmen refuse to be trained
and to perform booking office duties.
DECISION:
7. The Court, having considered the submissions made by the
parties, upholds the Rights Commissioner's recommendation.
The Court so decides.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
7th September, 1987 Nicholas Fitzgerald
B.O'N./P.W. Deputy Chairman