Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD8956 Case Number: AD8913 Section / Act: S13(9) Parties: IRISH RAIL - and - AMALGAMATED ENGINEERING UNION |
Appeal on behalf of a worker against Rights Commissioner's Recommendation No. B.C. 349/88 concerning a claim for loss of earnings.
Recommendation:
11. The Court having considered the submissions from both
parties is of the view that the recommendation of the Rights
Commissioner is not unreasonable in the circumstances and
accordingly the Court rejects the Appeal.
The Court notes that the Company's offer of shift work at Connolly
Station is still open to the claimant and that the Company is
prepared to assess and compensate on the basis of an agreed
formula any loss of earnings which would have occurred had the
claimant taken up the offer of shift work in Connolly Station.
Division: Ms Owens Mr McHenry Ms Ni Mhurchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD8956 APPEAL DECISION NO. AD1389
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 13(9)
PARTIES: IRISH RAIL
AND
AMALGAMATED ENGINEERING UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Appeal on behalf of a worker against Rights Commissioner's
Recommendation No. B.C. 349/88 concerning a claim for loss of
earnings.
BACKGROUND:
2. The worker concerned was employed as a fitter at the
locomotive maintenance depot in Fairview up to early 1982. At
that time the depot at Fairview was closed for conversion to a
maintenance depot for D.A.R.T. trains.
3. The staff located at Fairview were transferred to the
maintenance depot at Connolly Station as an interim arrangement.
When the Fairview depot was completed in 1984, a number of staff
elected to be transferred back to Fairview and the remainder were
retained at Connolly Station, including the worker here concerned.
(Maintenance on conventional locomotives is now carried out at
Connolly Station).
4. Negotiations on staffing levels and rosters for the
maintenance depot at Connolly then took place. These negotiations
were completed in the summer of 1986 and the new rosters were
introduced based on 3 cycle shift work. Certain staff, including
the worker here concerned, had been engaged in day work, and were
given the option of transferring to Inchicore workshops where day
work was available or remaining at Connolly Station on shift work.
5. The worker concerned declined to undertake shift work at
Connolly Station and was transferred to Inchicore workshops in
July, 1986. A claim for compensation for loss of earnings was
subsequently lodged. The Company rejected the claim on the basis
that had the worker remained at Connolly Station he would not lose
earnings.
6. The matter was then referred to a Rights Commissioner for
investigation and recommendation. The Rights Commissioner issued
his recommendation dated 30th November, 1988 following an
investigation held on 25th October, 1988:-
" In the light of the above I must hold that the offer
of alternative employment on shift work to the
worker is, in all the circumstances, fair and
reasonable and I therefore recommend that the
worker's claim fails. "
The worker was referred to by name in the Rights Commissioner's
Recommendation.
7. The Union appealed against the Rights Commissioner's
Recommendation to the Labour Court under Section 13(9) of the
Industrial Relations Act, 1969. The Court heard the appeal on
10th February, 1989.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
8. 1. In his recommendation, the Rights Commissioner
acknowledges the fact that the worker suffered a substantial
loss of earnings. However, he indicates that the Company
attempted to deal in a fair and equitable manner with the
worker. It is the Union's view that the options put forward
by the Company to the worker irrespective of which option he
accepted would have resulted in a substantial loss of
earnings. (Details supplied to the Court).
2. There are long established formulae applied within the
Company for dealing with loss of earnings. In spite of the
financial constraints which the Company claim exist, these
formulae are still in operation and where individuals sustain
loss of earnings, are used and compensation is paid by the
Company.
3. The Union feels that the worker was dealt with less
favourably than other people within the Company who suffered
similar losses. The Court is asked to recommend a level of
compensation to the worker in line with the normal formula of
2.50 times the annual loss of earnings.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
9. 1. While the Company agreed to pay compensation for loss of
earnings, which would arise as a result of re-organisation, it
feels that it would be unfair if it were required to pay this
compensation in a case where the employee, if he so wished,
could have elected to retain his previous level of earnings.
10. 2. An aspect of this case is that, while overtime earnings
have remained high at Connolly maintenance depot, because of
the nature of the work there, overtime, in various other
sectors, has had to be reduced considerably, because of the
Company's serious financial situation. This has arisen at
Inchicore depot, which is a workshop type of activity, and
where the work can be scheduled. Consequently, overtime
there has been seriously curtailed.
3. With regard to the present Company - the revenue, in
1987, amounted to #92.5 m. against an expenditure of #188.6m,
leaving a deficit of #96.2m. The pay increase, under the
27th wage round, will cost approximately #3.2 m. in a full
year. Revenue, in 1988, has been almost #1 m. short of
budget. Being a separate Company, under the 1963 Companies
Act, Iarnrod Eireann is now in a more vulnerable position,
and it must stand or fall in its performance within the
strict limits of a curtailed Government subsidy.
DECISION:
11. The Court having considered the submissions from both
parties is of the view that the recommendation of the Rights
Commissioner is not unreasonable in the circumstances and
accordingly the Court rejects the Appeal.
The Court notes that the Company's offer of shift work at Connolly
Station is still open to the claimant and that the Company is
prepared to assess and compensate on the basis of an agreed
formula any loss of earnings which would have occurred had the
claimant taken up the offer of shift work in Connolly Station.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court,
Evelyn Owens
___________________
23rd February, 1989
M. D. / M. F. Deputy Chairman.