Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD89271 Case Number: LCR12419 Section / Act: S67 Parties: IARNROD EIREANN - and - IRISH TRANSPORT & GENERAL WORKERS' UNION |
Claim on behalf of two foremen in the Road Freight Section for compensation for loss of earnings.
Recommendation:
5. Having considered the submissions made by the parties, the
Court is not satisfied that the claimants suffered their loss of
earnings because of their transfer from Broadstone to North Wall.
The Court accordingly does not recommend concession of the Union's
claim.
Division: Mr Fitzgerald Mr Shiel Mr Devine
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD89271 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR12419
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 67
PARTIES: IARNROD EIREANN
and
IRISH TRANSPORT & GENERAL WORKERS' UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Claim on behalf of two foremen in the Road Freight Section for
compensation for loss of earnings.
BACKGROUND:
2. In April, 1983 all Road Freight operational activity (except
the handling of newspapers) was transferred from the Broadstone
Depot to North Wall. Following protracted negotiations, including
two Labour Court recommendations (LCRs 7591 and 7825 refer), an
agreement concerning compensation for loss of earnings resulting
from the transfer was finally agreed at conciliation level in
December, 1987. When the Union raised the case of the two
claimants the Company rejected the claim, arguing that the losses
suffered were not as a result of the move to North Wall but were
due to a change in work practices in the previous year. As no
agreement could be reached at local level, the dispute was
referred to the conciliation service of the Labour Court on the
19th April, 1988. No agreement could be reached at a conciliation
conference on the 12th May and on the 29th March, 1989 the issue
was referred to the Labour Court for investigation and
recommendation. A Court hearing was held on the 12th May, 1989
(earliest suitable date).
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. Every individual moving from Broadstone depot to the
North Wall depot was covered by the guarantee of compensation
for loss of earnings. The Agreement negotiated at
conciliation in December, 1987 stated that:-
"(i) Compensation for loss of earnings arising from the
transfer from Broadstone to North Wall.
The existing formula will apply to everyone who
transferred and who is still on the payroll,
including the nine people who have already received
compensation, the final figures in respect of
compensation will be reduced (i) by 50% to take
account of the loss of business and (ii) by any
compensation already paid in connection with the
transfer."
Subsequently everyone entitled to compensation as a result of
the transfer received their compensation with the exception of
the two claimants.
2. Prior to the transfer the claimants covered for each
other for all periods of sick leave and annual leave. This
required the one on duty to work double shift for the periods
involved for which he received payment at overtime rates.
Coinciding with the transfer this self-covering arrangement
was abolished by the Company and a letter to the Rail
Operatives Union Group stated that "relief for these foremen
will be provided from the Road Freight Section". This clearly
indicates that the self-covering of the claimants ceased from
the time of the transfer.
3. An examination of the P60s of both men will show that
both suffered a substantial loss of gross earnings as a result
of the transfer (#1,190 and #1,181).
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Company acknowledges that the claimants had less
earnings in the year following their transfer from Broadstone
than in the previous year. However, the factor central to
that reduction in earnings occurred in October, 1982 when the
Company decided to utilise excess staff resources then
available as a result of declining business, to provide relief
for the foremen in question when they were absent on annual
leave, illness etc. instead of the pre-existing practice of
the two men providing relief for each other by double-shift
working. The decision by the Company in October, 1982 was
challenged by one of the foremen who took unofficial
industrial action. In the event, however, normal working was
resumed in accordance with the Company's proposal and from
then on relief was provided from within the Road Feight
Section. The records of attendance submitted to the Court
will show that from October 1982 onwards the practice of
double-shift working ceased and did not resume thereafter.
2. It will, therefore, be evident to the Court that the
reduction in earnings sustained by the claimants was totally
unrelated to the transfer from Broadstone to North Wall.
Their new pattern of work was established in October 1982 and
has since remained unaltered whereas the transfer to North
Wall took place in April 1983 i.e. six months after the change
which affected the earnings of the men concerned.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. Having considered the submissions made by the parties, the
Court is not satisfied that the claimants suffered their loss of
earnings because of their transfer from Broadstone to North Wall.
The Court accordingly does not recommend concession of the Union's
claim.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Nicholas Fitzgerald
26th May, 1989 --------------------
D.H./U.S. Deputy Chairmanp