Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD90144 Case Number: LCR12867 Section / Act: S67 Parties: IRISH RAIL - and - C.I.E. TRADE UNION GROUP;NATIONAL BUSWORKERS UNION |
Claim by the Unions for the payment of earnings lost while workers are 'grounded' pending the outcome of an inquiry into an incident.
Recommendation:
5. The Court having considered the oral and written submissions
of the parties considers workers "stood down" while awaiting an
internal or public enquiry should be paid as follows:-
(1) First two weeks from the date "stood down" basic pay.
(2) Thereafter pending the outcome of the enquiry payment of
basic pay plus 50% of the difference between basic pay and
normal rostered earnings.
The Court notes the Company has indicated that if the employee is
not deemed to be culpable in relation to the incident for which he
or she was "stood down" compensation will be made in full for any
loss of earnings.
Division: MrMcGrath Mr Keogh Mr Walsh
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD90144 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR12867
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 67
PARTIES: IRISH RAIL
AND
C.I.E. TRADE UNION GROUP
NATIONAL BUSWORKERS UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Claim by the Unions for the payment of earnings lost while
workers are 'grounded' pending the outcome of an inquiry into an
incident.
BACKGROUND:
2. Certain grades of workers, mainly drivers, guards or
signalmen, are removed from their normal jobs in the event of an
accident or incident pending an inquiry. While these workers are
"grounded" they are only paid at basic rates resulting in the loss
of bonuses, and overtime. This grounding can be for considerable
periods of time especially in the case of a public inquiry. In
the case of every accident or incident, the Company holds its own
internal inquiry, usually without undue delay. This inquiry could
in fact apportion blame to a worker who could be exonerated by a
later public inquiry, should one be held. Due to the length of
time an inquiry can take (up to 2 years in the case of a public
inquiry), the Unions claim that grounded staff should be paid in
full pending the outcome of an inquiry. The Company offered to
retrospectively pay in full those who remained grounded pending
the result of an internal inquiry if they were exonerated of blame
by the inquiry. The Unions rejected this offer and the matter was
referred to the conciliation service of the Labour Court on 23rd
September, 1989. No agreement was reached at a conciliation
conference held on 26th October, 1989, and the matter was referred
to the Labour Court on 7th February, 1990, for investigation and
recommendation. The Court investigated the dispute on 9th March,
1990.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. Whilst the Unions accept the good intent of the Company's
offer it must be realised that it is difficult to control the
length of time an inquiry takes and the worker will feel the
effects of the drop in earnings immediately. Furthermore,
there have been instances where the Company has found a worker
to blame for an incident but a subsequent public inquiry found
the opposite. Any worker may in the course of his duties be
involved in an accident and even if found blameless must wait
months or even years for lost pay.
2. Even when someone is found to be in breach of regulations
it is usually through error not malice. Under these
circumstances the punishment is very severe, usually amounting
to a loss of earnings far greater than fines levied for civil
or criminal offences. Other grades, however, in the case of
human error usually only receive a reprimand from their
supervisors. This is contrary to natural justice.
3. In the event of an accident or incident staff in Dublin
Bus are sent home for the duration of an inquiry and are paid
their basic pay, plus shift allowance, plus 33% one person
operated bus allowance and any other bonuses applying. If the
worker was found to be blameless she/he would be paid any
casual overtime that could have arisen during her/his absence.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Company initially rejected the Unions' claim, however
following discussions offered to amend the arrangements as
follows:-
" Staff "grounded" pending the outcome of an inquiry
will receive their basic rate of pay. If the
employees concerned are exonerated as a result of the
inquiry, the Company will subsequently reimburse them
to the level of their normal rostered earnings for the
period during which they did not perform their normal
rostered turn(s) of duty. Employees who are not on
regular rosters (e.g. loco drivers on "special
links"), payment will be made on the basis of the
average earnings over the eight weeks prior to the
date on which the employees concerned are "grounded".
This arrangement will similarly be conditional on the
employees concerned being exonerated as a result of
the inquiry. Should the staff members concerned fail
to be exonerated at the inquiry, no change will be
made in the existing arrangements i.e. basic pay will
be made to the "grounded" staff while the inquiry is
being conducted."
4. 2. The Company believes, that the offer is reasonable in the
circumstances and the Court has in the past held that payment
of basic pay was appropriate in a similar case. The grounding
of a worker is a safety precaution. If the worker is not
deemed to be culpabable in relation to an incident she/he is
compensated fully for any loss of earnings. Where a
disciplinary charge follows an inquiry and disciplinary action
is taken, due cognisance is taken of the fact that the worker
has been grounded for a period.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. The Court having considered the oral and written submissions
of the parties considers workers "stood down" while awaiting an
internal or public enquiry should be paid as follows:-
(1) First two weeks from the date "stood down" basic pay.
(2) Thereafter pending the outcome of the enquiry payment of
basic pay plus 50% of the difference between basic pay and
normal rostered earnings.
The Court notes the Company has indicated that if the employee is
not deemed to be culpable in relation to the incident for which he
or she was "stood down" compensation will be made in full for any
loss of earnings.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court,
Tom McGrath
___22nd_____May,____1990. ___________________
B. O'N. / M. F. Deputy Chairman