Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD8889 Case Number: LCR11821 Section / Act: S67 Parties: IRISH RAIL - and - IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION |
Compensation for the alleged disimprovement in the conditions of employment of one worker.
Recommendation:
7. The Court finds that this claimant is being paid correctly in
accordance with an existing agreement between the Company and the
trade unions. The Court does not, therefore, recommend concession
of the claim.
Division: CHAIRMAN Mr McHenry Mr Walsh
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD8889 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR11821
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 67
PARTIES: IRISH RAIL
and
IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Compensation for the alleged disimprovement in the conditions
of employment of one worker.
BACKGROUND:
2. The worker concerned is employed as a non-resident crossing
keeper at Strandbally level crossing on the Ballybrophy/Limerick
line. When he was originally employed in that position there was
a period of approximately four hours per day during which no
trains were scheduled to pass through the crossing and the worker
was not therefore required to be at the gates. In 1982 the
Company entered into an agreement for the transport of shale which
resulted in trains being scheduled to run during this four hour
period. A meeting was held in October, 1982 to discuss the
resultant interference with the worker's break. Subsequently the
worker was instructed to provide cover for all trains passing
through the crossing.
3. In 1984 the worker claimed that he should be paid an extra
flat week's pay in respect of the hour per day he worked in excess
of 12 hours on the grounds that he was saving the Company
employing an additional gatekeeper. The Company offered to pay
1/72 of the normal week's pay for each hour worked in excess of
12. The matter was investigated by a Rights Commissioner who
recommended that the Company's offer should be accepted. This
recommendation was accepted by the Union on the worker's behalf.
Subsequently it was appealed to the Labour Court but the Court
held that that the matter was not properly before it as the Rights
Commissioner's recommendation had been accepted and implemented.
4. The Union again served a claim in 1987 on the Company for
payment for the worker's extra duty. The Company rejected this
claim. As no settlement could be reached at local level the
matter was referred to the conciliation service of the Labour
Court. No agreement was reached at conciliation conferences held
on 8th April, 1987, 13th January, 1988 and 26th January, 1988 and
the matter was referred to the Labour Court for investigation and
recommendation. A Court hearing into the dispute was held in
Limerick on 23rd March, 1988. An additional letter was submitted
by the Union on 24th August, 1988.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
5. 1. When the worker was originally employed as a
non-resident crossing keeper he was informed that he was not
required to remain at the crossing for the 4 hour period
during which no trains were scheduled and that in fact he
would not receive any pay for doing so.
2. The worker's pay slip originally showed 54 hours, or 6
days x 9 hours per day. However, this figure was omitted from
his slip later and, when he queried this, the worker was told
that the figure had been removed from the pay slip in order to
facilitate the computer. This explanation is not acceptable
to either the worker or the Union. The worker is now working
thirteen hours per day and has lost his four hour break.
3. When the worker lost the break he attended a meeting at
which the problem was discussed. He was told to man the gates
for the scheduled times and take breaks in between the trains.
If a train was late he was not to wait as the guards on the
train could open the gates. However, after a week this
arrangement proved unsatisfactory and the worker was told to
man the gates for all trains and to take the question of any
loss to the Union. In doing this the Company recognised that
the worker was at a loss as a result of the removal of the
four hour break.
4. The number of trains increased from 9 to 16 with the
introduction of the shale train. The worker was obliged to
stay and take on the extra work without any compensation. The
Union is claiming payment for four hours per day over six days
for this major inconvenience and obvious additional work.
5. Prior to the 12 hour agreement for crossing keepers each
person hired to operate the gates on a non-resident basis were
employed on an individual basis depending on local
circumstances. Rates of pay varied at that time for the same
job due to the different circumstances. When the 12 hour
agreement was introduced it stipulated that anyone holding
better conditions would not have them worsened. In this
worker's case this has obviously not been adhered to.
6. The worker did not personally accept the Rights
Commissioner's recommendation. The Union had to accept it as
the majority of the workers involved accepted it even though
it was the worker here concerned who originally raised the
claim.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
6. 1. Non-resident crossing keepers are paid on the basis of
their hours of attendance and in accordance with the agreement
negotiated with the Rail Operative Trade Union Group in 1982.
The number of times they are required to open level crossing
gates during their hours of attendance can vary with changes
in timetable and with the operation of special trains.
2. The four hour gap which existed between trains in 1979
was reduced because of altered working in June, 1982 but the
total hours of attendance have only changed marginally.
3. The Union's claim is at variance with the Company/Trade
Union Group agreements applicable to crossing keepers.
Compensation of this type has never been paid to crossing
keepers. Concession of this claim could have very serious
financial implications for the Company.
4. The figure of 54 hours displayed on the worker's pay
slip was a notional figure for computer purposes only.
5. As a result of a Rights Commissioner's recommendation
which was accepted by him, the worker was paid 1/72nd of his
weekly wage rate for the extra hour per day above 12 hours
that he was required at the crossing.
RECOMMENDATION:
7. The Court finds that this claimant is being paid correctly in
accordance with an existing agreement between the Company and the
trade unions. The Court does not, therefore, recommend concession
of the claim.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
John M Horgan
30th August, 1988 ---------------
R.B./U.S. Chairman