Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD89810 Case Number: LCR12710 Section / Act: S67 Parties: IRISH RAIL - and - IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION |
Claim by the Union on behalf of one depot person for compensation for loss of earnings.
Recommendation:
6. In the light of the submissions made by the parties the Court
is of the opinion that the claims for payment of the worker for
the time in question is not sustainable. The Court does not,
therefore, recommend concession of the claim.
Division: Mr O'Connell Mr Collins Ms Ni Mhurchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD89810 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR12710
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 one depot person for
compensation for loss of earnings.
BACKGROUND:
2. The worker concerned had been employed with the Company in the
Tralee area until 1985, when following a restructuring he opted
for a depot person position in Killarney. This position was a 2
shift, Monday to Friday position. In 1987, the depot person was
rostered to attend a training course for the signal cabin. As the
signal cabin has a 7 day roster, which the depot person maintains
he was assured in 1985 he would never have to work, he refused to
attend the course. The matter was investigated by a Rights
Commissioner in March, 1988, who inter-alia recommended that the
depot person should attend the training course. This he did. He
was rostered to report for duty in the Killarney signal cabin on
3rd July, 1989, for familiarisation training in the working of
that cabin. This roster was to last 6 days. On the morning of
the 3rd July, 1989, the depot person did not report to the cabin
as rostered but instead carried out his normal duties. He was
informed that if he did not report to the cabin he would not be
paid. A meeting took place on 4th July, 1989, at which the Union
maintains, it was agreed that the depot person would go into the
cabin on his own 5 day roster and that he would only be required
to go into the cabin in emergencies. After this meeting the Union
contends that the acting station master told the depot person that
as he was going to be "passed out" in the cabin he would now be
able to do relief work for holidays and illness. As this had not
been agreed at the meeting the depot person said that he would
have to get management to confirm the agreement in writing, in the
meantime he would continue to do his normal duties. He continued
to do his depot persons work, despite being informed that he would
not be paid if he did not attend the cabin as rostered.
3. On 17th July, 1989, the depot person placed an unofficial
picket on Killarney station. He continued this picket until 20th
July, 1989, when it was lifted following a meeting with the Union.
The Company was informed that the depot person would report to the
signal cabin on 24th July, 1989, for familiarisation training. He
has since worked the cabin as required. On 27th July, 1989, the
Union claimed payment for the 3 week period from 3rd July, 1989,
in respect of which the depot person had not been paid. The
Company rejected the claim. On 2nd August, 1989, the dispute was
referred to the conciliation service of the Labour Court. No
agreement could be achieved at a conciliation conference held on
26th October, 1989, (earliest date suitable to the parties), and
the matter was referred to the Labour Court on 6th November, 1989,
for investigation and recommendation. The Court investigated the
dispute on 13th December, 1989, in Tralee.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. It is unacceptable for a Company such as this to leave one
of its workers without wages for a period of 3 weeks. It is
all the more reprehensive that this should happen to a worker
who was perfectly willing and able to carry out his normal
duties at all times.
2. At no time did the depot person object to doing the signal
course per se, however, he did object to doing signal duties
full time. He originally transferred to Killarney on the
basis of having a 5 day week, the Company appeared to want to
change this.
3. The failure of Company management to communicate clearly
and concisely with one another and their failure to put their
agreement with the depot person in writing seems to have given
rise to the extraordinary position whereby the depot person
was not paid for the first 2 weeks in July, 1989. The Company
are obliged to pay for the work he did during this period.
The Union also believes that the Company should be penalised
by being compelled to pay the depot person for the week of the
picket. Furthermore, there should be no question of
disciplinary action against the worker, in accordance with
assurances given.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
5. 1. The Company has declined to pay the depot person for the 2
weeks when he took it upon himself to refuse to report for
duty as rostered and for the period he mounted an unofficial
picket. His refusal to carry out instructions is a serious
matter which is the subject of disciplinary proceedings. If
he had any complaint he should have carried out his
instructions under protest and processed his grievance through
procedures. It was made clear to him at the time that he
would not be paid if he did not work as rostered.
2. There can be no justification whatsoever for what happened
in this case where a worker, contrary to all advice, ignored
the agreed procedures which must be used and in the end
attempted to bring about an interruption of services. The
consequences of this action could have been a loss of traffic
with a damaging effect on employment. His action was a clear
breach of an agreement between the Company and the Trade
Unions. The responsibility for any loss of earnings was his
own and there are no valid grounds for payment of
compensation.
RECOMMENDATION:
6. In the light of the submissions made by the parties the Court
is of the opinion that the claims for payment of the worker for
the time in question is not sustainable. The Court does not,
therefore, recommend concession of the claim.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
John O'Connell
__________________________
17th January, 1990. Deputy Chairman
B.O'N/J.C.