Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD8923 Case Number: LCR12404 Section / Act: S67 Parties: IRISH RAIL - and - IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION |
Claim by the Union on behalf of 3 signalmen for compensation for loss of earnings and 1 signalman for relocation expenses.
Recommendation:
5. Having considered the submission made by the parties the Court
recommends as follows:
(a) Signalman who was transferred to Killarney:
The Court does not recommend concession of the Union's
claim.
(b) Senior Depotperson, Millstreet:
The Court recommends that the Company should pay him the
maximum compensation i.e. #4,400.
(c) Signalmen (2) in Killarney:
The Court does not recommend concession of the Union's
claim.
Division: Mr Fitzgerald Mr McHenry Mr O'Murchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD8923 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR12404
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 67
PARTIES: IRISH RAIL
and
IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Claim by the Union on behalf of 3 signalmen for compensation
for loss of earnings and 1 signalman for relocation expenses.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Company decided to introduce what is known as "Long
Section Working" in the signalling system between Banteer and
Rathmore on the Mallow/Tralee line. As a result of the
re-organisation they do not require to maintain the signal cabin
on a regular basis at Millstreet. A senior depotperson there
suffered a reduction in overtime for which the Union on his behalf
is claiming #4,400 compensation for loss of earnings, (the maximum
under the Rail Operative Productivity Agreement). The claim is
rejected by the Company. Another signalman who had been employed
in Millstreet applied for, and was given a transfer to Killarney.
The Union claims that as a result of the re-organisation at
Millstreet he would have had to go to Killarney anyway and is
therefore entitled to relocation expenses of #550 for the first 5
years' service and #16 thereafter. The Company rejects the claim.
The Union further claims that this signalman's transfer resulted
in overtime for the two signalmen already based in Killarney being
reduced. These two signalmen are also claiming the maximum
compensation of #4,400 each. The Company rejects this claim also.
As local agreement could not be reached the matter was referred on
3rd November, 1988, to the conciliation service of the Labour
Court. No agreement could be reached at a conciliation conference
held on 1st December, 1988 and the matter was referred on 9th
January, 1989, to the Labour Court for investigation and
recommendation. The Court investigated the matter on 26th April,
1989, in Cork.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The senior depotperson's roster in Millstreet was
substantially changed as a result of the re-organisation. He
suffered a loss of earnings in excess of #86 per week. The
Company's final offer on compensation was #2,500. However,
under an agreed formula he should receive in excess of #4,000.
The Union understood that all agreements in relation to loss
of earnings would be fully honoured. It is unacceptable that
the Company should try to avoid its obligations.
2. The Company has argued that the senior depotperson's
weekly family earnings have not suffered as a result of the
changes in Millstreet since they have now employed his wife to
attend to the opening and closing of crossing gates. This is
an unacceptable argument. Prior to the changes she did not
have to work. Now she finds it necessary to do so to maintain
the family's weekly income. There is also no guarantee that
this job will always be there as automatic gates could be
installed at any time.
3. There is a provision in the Rail Operative Productivity
Agreement that specifies that a person who relocates will be
entitled to #550 for the first 5 years' of service and #16
thereafter. The Union believes that the Company is being
extremely unreasonable in not paying this compensation. If
the worker concerned had not co-operated with the transfer to
Killarney the Company would have been in a very awkward
position.
4. As a result of his transfer to Killarney, 2 signalmen
already working there lost substantial overtime earnings in
excess of #80 per week, which they had been earning for almost
2 years. It is partially true that this high level of
overtime arose from the illness of one of their colleagues,
but the fact is that the loss of earnings resulted directly
from the changes at Millstreet and they should be compensated.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The senior depotperson at Millstreet has had a loss of
approximately #90 per week as a result of the changes that
occurred. The Company is in a viability situation and it is
imperative that expenditure be curtailed. Accordingly, the
Company has been engaged in an ongoing review of manning
levels and services since its formation in 1987. Staff
numbers, in all grades, have been reduced through natural
wastage, redeployment and voluntary severance. The Unions
have agreed to co-operate in attaining the necessary
reductions which will necessitate greater flexibility in order
to achieve these reductions with the full amount of savings to
go to meet the cost of pay increases and future viability.
The Company's offer of #2,500 is fair and reasonable in all
the circumstances.
2. The senior depotperson's wife has been employed to attend
to the opening and closing of crossing gates in Millstreet as
a result of the changes. She receives #130.79 per week plus
one-sixth of a week's pay for Sunday and public holiday work.
Accordingly, their family income has not suffered.
3. The signalman who transferred to Killarney requested to do
so. He applied for a vacancy there on 8th December, 1987. As
he did so of his own volition there is no validity in his
claim for disturbance. It is not Company policy to make
disturbance payments where the transfer is at the employee's
request. Furthermore, since he actually resides in Killarney
he has suffered no disturbance but on the contrary his
position has improved.
4. The 2 signalmen in Killarney were in receipt of fortuitous
overtime due to the illness of another signalman. This
situation would not continue indefinitely and they were aware
of this. The overtime was always temporary in nature arising
from the absence of a colleague on illness.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. Having considered the submission made by the parties the Court
recommends as follows:
(a) Signalman who was transferred to Killarney:
The Court does not recommend concession of the Union's
claim.
(b) Senior Depotperson, Millstreet:
The Court recommends that the Company should pay him the
maximum compensation i.e. #4,400.
(c) Signalmen (2) in Killarney:
The Court does not recommend concession of the Union's
claim.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Nicholas Fitzgerald
________________________
19th May, 1989. Deputy Chairman
B.O'N/J.C.