Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD91250 Case Number: LCR13370 Section / Act: S26(1) Parties: IRISH RAIL - and - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION |
Dispute concerning the issue of a written warning and the loss of a weeks pay for a worker at Waterford Railway Station.
Recommendation:
5. The Court given all the circumstances surrounding this case
considers it should be resolved by the payment of 2 days pay to
the claimant.
The Court notwithstanding the above takes the view that the worker
should have carried out the rostered work and processed the issue
through the procedures.
Division: MrMcGrath Mr Keogh Mr Walsh
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD91250 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR13370
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990
PARTIES: IRISH RAIL
and
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Dispute concerning the issue of a written warning and the loss
of a weeks pay for a worker at Waterford Railway Station.
BACKGROUND:
2. The worker concerned is employed as a depotperson at Waterford
Depot. Depotperson are sometimes required to carry out signal
cabin relief work. The weekly roster for depotpersons is posted
up on the Thursday afternoon of the preceding week in the
inspector's office. On the week commencing 8th October, 1990 the
worker concerned performed night relief work at the Abbey Junction
Signal cabin. On the Thursday of that week the roster for
depotpersons was published and the worker was rostered for station
duties in Waterford on the 11.50 to 18.30 hours shift. The
Company subsequently decided to amend the roster which required
the worker to continue signal cabin night relief work. The
Company claims that the worker concerned was notified of the
amended roster on the Thursday shortly after the original roster
was published. The Union claims the worker was not informed of
the amended roster until approximately 17.00 hour on the Friday.
The worker concerned refused to accept the amended roster and
reported for duty for the following week (15th to 20th October,
1990) as per the originally published roster. He was not allowed
to sign on during that week and was subsequently charged through
the Company's disciplinary machinery with failure to report for
duty as instructed. The Union claims that it is agreed locally
that rosters can only be changed by mutual agreement and that the
worker should not be disciplined for refusing to agree to a change
in the roster. It also claims that the worker should be
compensated for his loss of one weeks pay. The Company state that
it has the right to alter rosters provided sufficient notice is
given. In this case the worker concerned was given sufficient
notice and should have worked under protest and pursued any
complaint through the recognised grievance procedures. No
agreement could be reached at local level discussions and the
matter was referred on 7th March, 1991 to the Labour Relations
Commission. A conciliation conference was held on 12th March,
1991 at which no agreement was reached. On 7th May, 1991 the
Commission referred the dispute to the Labour Court in accordance
with Section 26(1)(a)(b) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990.
The Court investigated the dispute in Waterford on 18th June,
1991.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. This dispute involves a point of fundamental principle
which affects not only the worker concerned but all of the
workers at Waterford. The point of principle is that the
Union disputes the Company's right to unilaterally change the
terms of long standing agreements and understandings. In this
particular case the Company has sought to change the long
established rostering arrangements. If the Company wishes to
change the arrangements it should do so through the proper
procedures.
2. In the particular case the worker concerned was told on
Friday that his roster was being changed. He was not asked.
This was a departure from the normal arrangement. The worker
exercised his privilege and refused to agree to the amended
roster. He was subsequently unfairly issued with a written
warning and suffered a loss of earnings. The written warning
should be withdrawn and the worker should be compensated for
his loss.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Company reserves the right to alter rosters to meet
the exigencies of the service, provided sufficient notice is
given to the employee. The change in roster was made known to
the worker concerned on Thursday, before he went off duty and
3 days in advance of taking effect.
2. Where staff have a complaint or objection to altered
rosters it is normal practice to work 'under protest' and
pursue any complaint through the recognised grievance
procedure. The worker concerned refused to work as instructed
and put himself into the situation of incurring a loss in
earnings. Having regard to the disciplinary aspect of this
dispute, the disciplinary procedures have not been fully
exhausted and the charges against the worker should be
processed through the agreed procedures.
3. The Company does not consider that there are any valid
grounds for concession of the Union's claim. Indeed to allow
payment in this case would create a most undesirable
precedent. Accordingly the Company requests the Court not to
recommend in favour of any payment for the period concerned.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. The Court given all the circumstances surrounding this case
considers it should be resolved by the payment of 2 days pay to
the claimant.
The Court notwithstanding the above takes the view that the worker
should have carried out the rostered work and processed the issue
through the procedures.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Tom McGrath
____________________________
31st July, 1991. Deputy Chairman
A.S./J.C.