Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD89200 Case Number: AD8933 Section / Act: S13(9) Parties: IRISH RAIL - and - TRANSPORT SALARIED STAFFS' ASSOCIATION |
Appeal by the Company against Rights Commissioner's Recommendation No. ST 109/88.
Recommendation:
5. The Court is satisfied that the loss of overtime involved
arose directly from efforts to cut costs consequent on a greatly
reduced volume of stock items in the stores and that no continued
benefit arises for the Company.
The Court therefore is of the opinion that in this case the
Company's appeal against the terms of the Rights Commissioner
Recommendation should be upheld.
The Court so decides.
Division: Mr O'Connell Mr Collins Mr O'Murchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD89200 APPEAL DECISION NO. AD3389
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969
SECTION 13(9)
PARTIES: IRISH RAIL
AND
TRANSPORT SALARIED STAFFS' ASSOCIATION
SUBJECT:
1. Appeal by the Company against Rights Commissioner's
Recommendation No. ST 109/88.
BACKGROUND:
2. The worker concerned is employed as a foreman class 2, in the
Company's rail stores at Inchicore. He was promoted from foreman
class 3 in March, 1980. The Association contends that it was a
condition of the new job, and a major attraction attaching to it,
that five nights overtime per week would be part of the job. This
was reduced to two nights in September, 1983 and to one night in
December, 1983. All overtime was stopped in September, 1987. On
11th October, 1987 the worker submitted a claim to the Company for
compensation for loss of overtime. On 11th November, 1988 the
worker received a reply from the personnel section of the Company
which stated inter alia, "it is the established practice that
where overtime is limited because of the cutback in work due to
the Company's critical financial position, compensation is not
paid." This response was not acceptable to the worker who
referred the matter to his Association. Agreement could not be
reached on the issue at local level, and the matter was referred
to a Rights Commissioner for investigation and recommendation. On
28th October, 1988 the Rights Commissioner issued the following
recommendation in the matter:-
"...The Company has, with some effect, quoted several
recent Labour Court Recommendations rejecting
similar claims in the public service. However, it
is not quite clear whether any agreements exist in
these employments covering compensation for loss of
overtime etc.
In this employment one does exist and neither party
has as yet made any move to formally amend or
abolish the agreement. I must therefore have regard
to the agreement as it is my view, that the
Government never intended the cuts to end the proper
application of industrial relations agreements and
procedures.
However, one cannot ignore the severe financial
difficulties of the Company. In the circumstances
the application of the formula of 2.5 times actual
loss is excessive. The loss is 3.1 equated hours
equals #17.59 per week. On a 48 hour week working
year this amounts to #844. In the circumstances I
recommend 1.5 times this amount i.e. #1,266 in full
and final settlement and without precedent or
prejudice to existing agreements."
The Company was not satisfied with the Rights Commissioner's
recommendation, and on 20th February, 1989 it appealed the
recommendation to the Labour Court. The Company agreed to be
bound by the Court's decision. A Court hearing on the matter took
place in Dublin on 6th April, 1989.
ASSOCIATION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. During the course of the interview which led to his
promotion, the worker was given a clear indication that the
overtime he would be required to work would be ongoing. In
the event, the Company decided that with effect from
September, 1987 the routine inspection work should be
eliminated because of financial constraints. This was not
contested by either the Association or the worker. The
Association did adopt the attitude that the discontinuation
represented a considerable ongoing saving to the Company.
2. The Company has an obligation to the worker to compensate
him for the losses he has sustained. There is a procedural
agreement existing in the Company whereby the agreed formula
for compensation for loss of overtime is 2.50 times the annual
loss. The Rights Commissioner recommended a payment of only
1.50 times the loss suffered. In deference to the financial
constraints on the Company, the Association indicated its
acceptance of this recommendation. The Court is asked to take
into account the losses suffered by the worker and therefore
to uphold the Rights Commissioner's recommendation.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. In 1982 the Government set the Company the task of
reducing its expenditure by 12% over a five year period to
1987 and a further 3.50% each year up to 1991. To meet these
requirements various cost savings measures were put into
effect. These included reduction of overtime working and a
considerable reduction in the number and value of stock items
(details supplied to the Court). The changes arise out of the
current stringent financial constraints imposed by the
Government. There have been many instances where the Court
has declined compensation for loss of earnings consequent on
economic factors (details supplied to the Court).
2. The agreement referred to in the Company by the Rights
Commissioner concerns the arrangements for the payment of
compensation to certain sections of Irish Rail employees where
as a result of a productivity re-organisation by the Company
an employee suffers a loss of earnings. This is not the case
here. The agreement does not apply where the loss of earings
comes about as a result of loss of business in recession, or
as in this case economies introduced to reduce costs so as to
remain within a reduced budget.
DECISION:
5. The Court is satisfied that the loss of overtime involved
arose directly from efforts to cut costs consequent on a greatly
reduced volume of stock items in the stores and that no continued
benefit arises for the Company.
The Court therefore is of the opinion that in this case the
Company's appeal against the terms of the Rights Commissioner
Recommendation should be upheld.
The Court so decides.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court,
John O'Connell
_______________________
28th April, 1989.
P. F. / M. F. Deputy Chairman.