Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD88282 Case Number: LCR11860 Section / Act: S67 Parties: CORAS IOMPAIR EIREANN - and - IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION |
Claim for compensation for loss of earnings.
Recommendation:
5. In the particular circumstances of this case the Court
recommends payment of £750 compensation.
Division: Ms Owens Mr Shiel Mr O'Murchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD88282 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR11860
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 67
PARTIES: CORAS IOMPAIR EIREANN
and
IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Claim for compensation for loss of earnings.
BACKGROUND:
2. The worker concerned has been employed with the Company since
April, 1957, and had worked in the Road Freight Section in various
locations until October, 1980. Due to ill health he was unable to
continue working in this section and was re-allocated as an adult
messenger in the Public Affairs Section. The work involved the
copying of public relations material for the whole of the C.I.E.
net work, rail, road, and freight, and the employee worked
approximately 6-8 hours weekly in overtime. When the Company was
restructered as a result of Government legislation, the work
formerly done by the employee on an overtime basis became the
responsibility of the individual companies and as a result, the
employee's overtime ceased. A claim for loss of earnings was
served on his behalf by the Union but it was rejected by the
Company. The dispute was referred to the conciliation service of
the Labour Court on the 9th March, 1988. A conciliation
conference took place on the 28th March, 1988 but no agreement was
reached. The matter was referred to the Court for investigation
and recommendation on the 20th April, 1988. A Labour Court
hearing took place on the 6th May, 1988.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The employee was in receipt of payment for 6-8 hours
overtime per week prior to the split up of the Company. When
the Company was restructured the worker's overtime ceased.
His standard of living decreased because his average nett
weekly wage was reduced from approximately £120.00 to £109.00
per week.
3. 2. There was no prior consultation or agreement on the
elimination of the overtime involved. The agreement with the
Company stipulates that compensation for loss of earnings
would be paid subject to a maximum of £4,500. Using the
agreed formula this compensation entitled the employee to a
lump sum of £4,334.00.
3. The worker has enjoyed higher earnings by way of overtime
since he joined the Company. As the worker has a large family
to support, he is entitled to compensation to help cushion the
serious affect that the loss of overtime has placed on him.
4. While the Company has stated that there were 100 cases
awaiting the outcome of this case the Union has investigated
the matter and has found no foundation in this statement and
would not use a favourable recommendation obtained in this
case as a precedent. There are a number of criteria which
must prevail to justify such claims from the Court's point of
view and these have been met in this case (details supplied to
the Court).
5. The spirit of the understanding reached between the
Company, and Unions prior to the breaking-up was that staff
would not lose as a consequence of the new legislation. We
hold, therefore, that as the worker did lose he is entitled to
be compensated in accord with the well established formula.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The employee who was unable to work in the Road Freight
Section due to ill health was accommodated by the Company in
the Public Affairs Section, even though, in accordance with
the provisions of the Company's Welfare Scheme, he could have
been paid off at that stage. It was Company policy to
accommodate such persons in other employment if at all
possible.
2. The employee's loss arises from the Government's decision
to restructure the Company and not from a decision of the
Company itself to implement a scheme of re-organisation. In
the circumstances the Company should not be required to
compensate the employee for his loss.
3. Many other staff have been affected by the restructuring,
and have suffered similar losses in overtime, without
compensation for loss of earnings. The restructuring of the
Company is not a productivity measure, nor a scheme for
re-organisation introduced by the Company, but is the result
of Government legislation.
4. 4. While there was statutory provision for the payment of
compensation for loss of earnings arising out of various
re-organisations of the railways, the introduction of the
Transport Acts 1950 to 1966 and the G.N.R. Railways Acts 1953
to 1958 reduced the grounds under which compensation could be
paid, and culminated with the Redundancy Payments Act, 1967.
There is no provision in the Transport Act, 1986 for the
payment of compensation for loss arising out of the setting up
of the new companies.
5. As C.I.E.'s losses prior to the restructuring were running
at over £100 million a year the setting up of separate
companies was sanctioned by the Government to contain the
losses. There has also been a reduction in the level of
Government subvention paid to the Company, and it has been
made clear that no further monies will be made available,
therefore measures have been taken to reduce costs such as the
non filling of vacancies, redundancies, and the elimination of
overtime.
6. A claim for compensation for loss of earnings on behalf of
ambulance personnel against the Eastern Health Board following
the elimination of overtime was referred to the Labour Court
for consideration, but the Court did not recommend the
concession of the claim. C.I.E.'s financial position compares
to that of the Health Boards. The Court has recognised that
changes in working arrangements brought about by stringent
financial restrictions are not in the same category as schemes
for reorganisation or productivity and as such do not call for
compensation where loss of earnings is incurred.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. In the particular circumstances of this case the Court
recommends payment of £750 compensation.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court.
Evelyn Owens
___________________
23rd May, 1988.
T. O'D. / M. F. Deputy Chairman