Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD90698 Case Number: LCR13177 Section / Act: S67 Parties: IRISH RAIL - and - C.I.E. TRADE UNION GROUP |
Claim by the Unions on behalf of maintenance workers for payment for a lay-off period.
Recommendation:
5. The Court has considered the issues raised in this case and is
concerned that the Company found it necessary, contrary to general
industrial practice to lay off workers not directly involved in
the dispute and whose work would in no way have been restricted by
the existence of the rail operatives strike. On the other hand
the Court recognises the severe financial restraints under which
the Company operates and accepts that it was the cash flow
problems arising from loss of revenue on the day in question which
gave rise to the Company taking the course of action. This
decision would appear to have deprived the Company of the
potential long term benefit which probably would have arisen by
continuing the maintenance and development work which was
interrupted.
The Court does not recommend concession of the Union's claim on
this occasion but does recommend that the Company give serious
consideration in the future to a possible change in policy in this
respect particularly where it is known in advance that the dispute
which arises will be of short duration and unlikely to be repeated
at frequent intervals.
Subsequent to the hearing the Court has received contradictory
information as to the treatment of apprentices on the day in
question. The Court recommends that in the event that apprentices
were laid off that in their case they should be reimbursed any
losses involved.
Division: Mr O'Connell Mr McHenry Mr Devine
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD90698 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR13177
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 67
PARTIES: IRISH RAIL
and
C.I.E. TRADE UNION GROUP
SUBJECT:
1. Claim by the Unions on behalf of maintenance workers for
payment for a lay-off period.
BACKGROUND:
2. On 24th August, 1990 there was a one day official strike by
rail operative grades and all maintenance workers were laid off by
the Company on that day. Notice of this industrial action was
served on the Company by S.I.P.T.U. on 10th August, 1990 and on
16th August, 1990 the Company issued all staff with notice of lay
off. For salaried staff this was a month's notice and for
operatives this was a week. Workers were given the option of
taking annual leave on this day which a number did. A total of
1281 workers were laid off on 24th August, 1990 as a result of the
one day work stoppage. The Trade Union Group on behalf of the
maintenance workers is claiming that the workers should receive a
day's pay for this day and that those who took annual leave should
have the day's annual leave restored. This is on the basis that
the lay offs were selective in that they were confined to hourly
paid workers and the stoppage would not have affected the work
available to the maintenance workers. This was rejected by the
Company on the basis that it had to lay off the workers due to the
loss of revenue to the Company from the one day stoppage.
Agreement could not be reached at local level and on 2nd October,
1990 the matter was referred to the conciliation service of the
Labour Court. A conciliation conference was held on 21st
November, 1990 at which no progress was made and on 22nd November,
1990 the matter was referred to the Labour Court for investigation
and recommendation. The Court investigated the dispute on 15th
January, 1991.
UNIONS' ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. In accordance with I.C.T.U. policy the strike which took
place on 24th August, 1990 was confined to the grades
concerned. However, the Company locked out maintenance
workers who were not involved in the dispute, who therefore
lost a day's pay of between #40 and #60 each. The maintenance
workers have no connection with the issue involving rail
operative grades. The workers concerned have different
working conditions, agreements and trade union groupings and
should not have been treated in this manner.
2. The Unions' claim is based on a total breach of existing
agreements and practices by the Company in relation to the
working week. In addition, contrary to normal practice
apprentices who reported to the workshops/training centre were
sent home and not paid for the day. The Company's decision
was illogical when maintenance work could have been carried
out on vehicles not in use and work completion dates have to
be met. In addition, building trade staff involved in bridges
and building maintenance were laid off. The decision by the
Company to impose on workers not involved in the dispute a cut
in wages is only conducive to an atmosphere of non
co-operation. The workers should receive a day's pay for the
24th August, 1990 or have the day's leave restored where this
was taken.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Company's decision to lay off workers was made in the
context of the serious implications which an interruption of
services would have on the Company's financial position. The
Company has a statutory duty to meet its liabilities in full
each year within the financial resources available to it.
There are only two sources of income available, revenue from
customers and government subvention which is being reduced at
a rate of 3.5% in real terms annually. In this context the
Company is constantly faced with difficult cash flow problems
and is significantly reliant on current revenue to meet day to
day costs including payment of wages and salaries. As a
result of the suspension of services on 24th August, 1990 it
is estimated that #250,000 was lost in revenue. The cost of
reimbursing all the workers who were laid off on that day
would amount to #60,000 and if this claim was conceded
repercussive claims would follow in respect of other workers.
2. Notice of lay off was issued in a accordance with normal
custom and practice, i.e. on the basis of one week's notice
for operative workers. The workers were given the option of
taking annual leave on the day in order to protect their
earnings and a number of shop staff and other grades took this
option. The notice of industrial action has not been
withdrawn by the Rail Operative Trade Union Group, similarly
the Company's notice of lay off is still extant and will have
to be again invoked if services are interrupted due to further
industrial action. The Court has not recommended payment in
previous similar circumstances and the Court should not
recommend in favour of the Unions' claim for a day's pay in
respect of Friday 24th August, 1990.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. The Court has considered the issues raised in this case and is
concerned that the Company found it necessary, contrary to general
industrial practice to lay off workers not directly involved in
the dispute and whose work would in no way have been restricted by
the existence of the rail operatives strike. On the other hand
the Court recognises the severe financial restraints under which
the Company operates and accepts that it was the cash flow
problems arising from loss of revenue on the day in question which
gave rise to the Company taking the course of action. This
decision would appear to have deprived the Company of the
potential long term benefit which probably would have arisen by
continuing the maintenance and development work which was
interrupted.
The Court does not recommend concession of the Union's claim on
this occasion but does recommend that the Company give serious
consideration in the future to a possible change in policy in this
respect particularly where it is known in advance that the dispute
which arises will be of short duration and unlikely to be repeated
at frequent intervals.
Subsequent to the hearing the Court has received contradictory
information as to the treatment of apprentices on the day in
question. The Court recommends that in the event that apprentices
were laid off that in their case they should be reimbursed any
losses involved.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
John O'Connell
___________________________
6th February, 1991 Deputy Chairman.
U.M./J.C.