Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD90473 Case Number: AD9041 Section / Act: S13(9) Parties: IRISH RAIL - and - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION |
Appeal by the Company against Rights Commissioner's Recommendation No. S.T. 190/90 concerning loss of earnings.
Recommendation:
5. The Court has considered the submissions made by the parties
in this case, and having regard to the confusion surrounding
events on the Monday after the initial refusal to carry out work
as requested, is of the opinion that on balance the Rights
Commissioner's Recommendation should stand.
The Court so decides.
Division: Mr O'Connell Mr Brennan Mr Walsh
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD90473 APPEAL DECISION NO. AD4190
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 13(9)
PARTIES: IRISH RAIL
and
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Appeal by the Company against Rights Commissioner's
Recommendation No. S.T. 190/90 concerning loss of earnings.
BACKGROUND:
2. The claim concerns ten workers who are employed as engineering
operatives (vicemen) at Limerick Wagon Works. In 1989 a
conversion programme commenced on pallet cement wagons replacing
lifting side doors with curtain wall sides. Agreement was reached
between the Union and the Company covering twenty wagons in the
1989 programme. In 1990 the Company proposed converting a further
twenty wagons but had not reached Agreement with the Union on this
issue. On Friday 27th April, 1990 the workers concerned were
instructed to remove the old side doors from the pallet cement
wagons. They objected to doing this work and were told to leave
the premises. Following a meeting between the Company and the
Union on Monday 30th April, 1990 the dispute was resolved and the
workers agreed to resume work on Tuesday 1st May, 1990.
Subsequently the Union submitted a claim for loss of earnings for
the Friday and Monday. Management rejected the claim. The issue
was referred to a Rights Commissioner on the 3rd July, 1990. On
the 11th July, 1990 the Rights Commissioner issued his
recommendation as follows:-
"This is not a straight forward case of a bloody minded group
setting out to create an industrial dispute. They had sought
certain changes in the arrangements for wagons which might be
converted after the first twenty. No urgency was present yet
the Company on the last day of the working week less than two
hours before quitting time chose to allocate this work.
Despite this seemingly sharp move the men should have worked
under protest. They left the job at 4 p.m. However, they
clocked in at normal starting time on the Monday, some men
actually worked at normal duties on this occasion. Their
clock cards were not taken out, which is the normal way
workers are informed they are "off the clock." The Union
only became aware at 11 a.m. that they would not be paid. A
meeting with the Official and Shop Steward lasted all day
until 5.30 p.m. It therefore seems to me that the Shop
Steward should be paid by the Company in the normal way as a
delegate. The men who worked should also be paid as they
clocked in on the Monday in good faith. They have no case in
my view for payment on the Friday as they left the premises
of their own volition and in concert. There is no question
of payment for overtime not worked. I therefore recommend
that the claimants receive 8 hours pay for the Monday only
for the reasons advanced above."
The Company rejected the recommendation and on the 2nd August,
1990 appealed it to the Labour Court under Section 13(9) of the
Industrial Relations Act, 1969. A Court hearing was held on the
26th September, 1990.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. It is not the Company's policy to pay staff for periods
during which they are engaged in industrial action (in this
case an unofficial work stoppage). To concede payment in this
case would be contrary to normal practice within the Company
and would undoubtedly be cited as a precedent in the future.
The Labour Court in many previous cases has not recommended
payment to employees for periods of industrial disputes
(L.C.R. 8769, AD68-83, AD50-84, AD74-85 refers).
2. The workers concerned refused to carry out instructions to
perform work appropriate to their grade. It was open to the
employees concerned to carry out the work "under protest" and
this is in fact what happened when the vicemen resumed work on
Tuesday 1st May, 1990. The shop steward referred to in the
Rights Commissioner's Recommendation was a viceman involved in
the dispute, and accordingly the Company cannot accept that he
should be treated in a different manner with regard to the
question of payment.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. In December, 1989 the Union asked the works manager if it
was envisaged that other wagons were to be converted and if so
the parties should reach agreement before any work was
undertaken. He said there was no urgency. In February, 1989
when again questioned on this issue the manager again repeated
that there was no urgency. When at 3.50 p.m. on Friday 27th
April, the workers concerned were advised by Management to
work on a new batch of wagons the Company was advised by one
of the workers (who is also a shop steward) that the 1989
Agreement ended with the completion of twenty wagons. The
workers concerned informed their Union branch official at 4.00
p.m. that they were told to go home.
2. The Union official contacted Management and it was agreed
to hold a meeting at 8.00 a.m. on Monday 30th April in the
Company premises. The workers concerned checked in at 8 a.m.
on Monday and at the subsequent meeting Management conceded
that there was only agreement on the conversion of twenty
wagons.
3. Some of the workers were employed normally; others were
not given any instructions to work by the foremen so they were
off the payroll. When the issue of agreement on a further
twenty wagons was settled Management stated that they would do
what they could for the workers in relation to being paid for
time off. However the Company subsequently refused payment.
The Union has accepted the Rights Commissioner's
recommendation of one day's pay.
4. The Union would like to emphasise that since the 28th
April, 1990 only two wagons have been completed so the Union
cannot understand Company policy in this instance.
DECISION:
5. The Court has considered the submissions made by the parties
in this case, and having regard to the confusion surrounding
events on the Monday after the initial refusal to carry out work
as requested, is of the opinion that on balance the Rights
Commissioner's Recommendation should stand.
The Court so decides.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
John O'Connell
_________________________
4th October, 1990. Deputy Chairman.
T.O'D./J.C.