Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD91445 Case Number: LCR13431 Section / Act: S26(1) Parties: IARNROD EIREANN - and - NATIONAL BUS AND RAIL UNION |
Claim by the Union on behalf of two train guards for compensation in respect of loss of overtime earnings.
Recommendation:
7. Having considered the submissions from the parties the Court
finds no basis on which it could base a finding in favour of the
Union's claim.
The Court accordingly upholds the Company's position and rejects
the claim.
Division: Ms Owens Mr McHenry Mr Devine
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD91445 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR13431
THE LABOUR COURT
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 26 INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990
PARTIES: IARNROD EIREANN
and
NATIONAL BUS AND RAIL UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Claim by the Union on behalf of two train guards for
compensation in respect of loss of overtime earnings.
BACKGROUND:
2. As a result of the discontinuation of the 16.10 Mallow/Cork
service in January, 1990, the "guards' links" covering four
rosters was expanded from 32 hours 25 mins per day to 33 hours per
day. This resulted in one of the four rosters covered increasing
from 9 hours to 9 hours 35 mins. These changes affected four
guards based at Limerick.
3. As this exceeded the agreed roster of 9 hours per day, further
discussions ensued on the implementation of revised "guards'
links". Agreement was reached on a "links" of 31 hours 45 minutes
a reduction of 1 hour 15 minutes. The revised "links" came into
effect from 3rd September, and the 1 hour 15 minutes was covered
by acting guards in Limerick.
4. The Union subsequently lodged a claim for loss of earnings,
quantified at £1,560, for each guard. The claim was rejected by
the Company. The matter was referred to the Labour Relations
Commission. A conciliation conference was held on 18th July,
1991. As no agreement was reached the issue was considered by the
Commission and with the consent of the parties referred to the
Labour Court under Section 26(1)(a)(b) of the Industrial Relations
Act, 1990 for investigation and recommendation. A Court hearing
was held in Limerick on 18th September, 1991.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
5. 1. Rostered overtime is a prime consideration when
negotiating "guards links" and is a regular and permanent
feature of those rosters. Management's decision to limit the
guards rosters to 9 hours had an adverse affect on their
earnings. Junior grades who perform guard duties on an acting
capacity, now earn more than the guards.
2. The overtime lost was regular and rostered and the
workers had expectated the resultant earnings would contine.
3. Guards in other areas are rostered for more than nine
hours because there are no other workers available to do the
work. (Details supplied to the Court).
4. Other claims for loss of rostered overtime have been
conceded by the Company (details supplied to the Court).
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
6. 1. The guards enjoyed the enhanced earnings for a short
period only. They should not have been expected them to
continue.
2. The reduction in the "links" hours introduced in
September, 1990 was prompted because the previous "links"
exceeded the 9 hour roster limit and by the impending
timetable change in July, 1990.
3. The time taken from the regular guards was transferred
to acting guards with no savings to the Company.
4. Timetable changes are an accepted feature of the
employment which results in changes in earnings for staff.
Some gain and some lose. The Court has consistently rejected
claims for compensation in such circumstances.
RECOMMENDATION:
7. Having considered the submissions from the parties the Court
finds no basis on which it could base a finding in favour of the
Union's claim.
The Court accordingly upholds the Company's position and rejects
the claim.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Evelyn Owens
--------------------
7th October, 1991
M.D./U.S. Deputy Chairman