Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD89373 Case Number: LCR12464 Section / Act: S67 Parties: IRISH RAIL - and - IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION |
Dispute concerning the unsatisfactory nature of jobs offered and adequate compensation for loss of pay to two workers employed on the cash security van.
Recommendation:
9. On the basis of the submissions made, the Court does not
consider that any special compensatory payment is warranted to the
two workers concerned. The Court, therefore, recommends that the
operation of the cash van ceases without further delay and that
the men concerned accept one of the alternatives offered to them.
The Court further recommends that compensation for loss of
earnings involved should be in accordance with the generally
agreed formula.
Division: Mr O'Connell Mr Shiel Mr Walsh
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD89373 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR12464
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 67
PARTIES: IRISH RAIL
and
IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Dispute concerning the unsatisfactory nature of jobs offered
and adequate compensation for loss of pay to two workers employed
on the cash security van.
BACKGROUND:
2. In April, 1973 C.I.E. introduced its own internal cash
conveyance service. The Company acquired its own custom built
security van to undertake all cash movements.
3. A road freight driver and a road freight helper were selected
to operate the service. They were paid the appropriate road
freight basic rates of pay and a special allowance of 26% of basic
rate. They have received the increases and lump sum payment due
under the provisions of the Productivity Agreement for road
freight operative staff agreed with the Road Freight Trade Union
Group in July, 1980.
4. For security and staff safety reasons, the Company decided to
discontinue its own service and to engage the services of a
specialised security firm.
5. The workers concerned were informed of the Company's decision
and that it proposed to redeploy them depotpersons in the
Transtrack Stores in North Wall. In a letter to the Union on 17th
February, 1989 the Company set out its proposal to compensate the
men both for reduction in grade and other loss of earnings which
would result from their redeployment. The compensation offered
was in line with the agreed formula which has operated in the
Company (details supplied to the Court). The Union rejected the
Company's proposal as the jobs offered do not have the same
earning capacity, required the same degree of skill give the job
satisfaction which they currently enjoy. The Union also argued
that the normal compensatory formula should not be applied in this
case due to its uniqueness.
6. Meetings took place at local level between the parties at
which the Company offered other alternative jobs some of which
would enhance the workers' earnings (details supplied to the
Court). The Union rejected these offers as they did not meet the
workers expectations. The matter was referred to the conciliation
service of the Labour Court on 7th March, 1989. No agreement was
possible and the parties referred the matter to the Labour Court
for investigation and recommendation. A Court hearing was held on
the 15th June, 1989.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
7. 1. The workers concerned have a special and unique case,
because of the following circumstances:
(a) These individuals entered into a contract of
employment to undertake their current job. This is
now being broken by the Company for no real or genuine
reasons. The aim is to give this work to an outside
contractor.
(b) They are currently employed in the finance section,
which is separate to the other operations.
(c) These individuals, relinquished their rights to take
industrial action and to further progression within
the Company.
(d) The personal background and characters of these
individuals were thoroughly examined by the gardai.
(e) This section is being closed and the work being handed
over to an outside contractor.
The normal compensation for loss of earnings would not
therefore reflect the uniqueness of this case and some other
method must be found to answer the workers claims.
2. The jobs offered do not reflect the skill and expertise
which these men possess. Also the jobs are in other sections
which would mean that they would be juniors in those sections
despite their long service with the Company. The conditions
of the jobs on offer would mean a complete disruption of their
personal, social and domestic life. The jobs offered would
involve night shift workers with little or no overtime
working.
3. The Union is of the view that the Company is being
selective in the type of jobs being offered. There are
vacancies for shunters in the Broadstone Depot while but the
Company claim that they are not looking for anyone in that
section.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
8. 1. The Company has made every effort to re-deploy the man to
suitable alternative jobs within the organisation. Some of
the jobs offered would have given the workers an opportunity
to enhance their earnings (details supplied to the Court).
2. The Company is prepared to review the workers' earnings
after a period of twelve months and to paying compensation for
a reduction in grade. Should the workers experience a loss of
earnings they will be paid in accordance with the agreed
formula. The Company is not prepared to depart from the
agreed formula. That agreement has been upheld on many
occasions by the Court.
RECOMMENDATION:
9. On the basis of the submissions made, the Court does not
consider that any special compensatory payment is warranted to the
two workers concerned. The Court, therefore, recommends that the
operation of the cash van ceases without further delay and that
the men concerned accept one of the alternatives offered to them.
The Court further recommends that compensation for loss of
earnings involved should be in accordance with the generally
agreed formula.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court,
John O'Connell
12th July, 1989 Deputy Chairman.
M.D./J.C.