Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD91614 Case Number: LCR13526 Section / Act: S26(4) Parties: IRISH RAIL - and - RAIL OPERATIVE TRADE UNION GROUP/NATIONAL BUS AND RAIL UNION |
Dispute concerning a clarification of LCR13272 regarding a 40 hours claw back on retirement.
Recommendation:
3. The Court has given careful consideration to all the points
raised by the parties with reference to the implementation of the
above recommendation.
The Court understands that the employees concerned have genuine
difficulty in the Company's proposals set out in their letter of
1st August, 1991 and confirmed by the Labour Court.
Following the resumed hearing the Court has again examined the
matters raised and again confirms that the Company is correct in
its interpretation of the above recommendation. The Court
conceded the Union's claim with regard to pre 1947 entrants only.
The Court accepts the Company's submission that the weeks' claw
back was implemented when employees transferred out of the running
department not withstanding the fact that they retained the same
rate of pay and seniority. The week therefore which should now be
refunded in line with the recommendation is that which was
deducted on transfer from the running department at the rate then
applicable.
Division: Ms Owens Mr Keogh Ms Ni Mhurchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD91614 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR13526
THE LABOUR COURT
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 67 INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1946
PARTIES: IRISH RAIL
AND
RAIL OPERATIVE TRADE UNION GROUP/NATIONAL BUS AND RAIL UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Dispute concerning a clarification of LCR13272 regarding a 40
hours claw back on retirement.
BACKGROUND:
2. A Labour Court hearing into the above dispute took place on
19th December, 1991. A letter issued as set out below on 8th
January, 1992.
RECOMMENDATION:
3. The Court has given careful consideration to all the points
raised by the parties with reference to the implementation of the
above recommendation.
The Court understands that the employees concerned have genuine
difficulty in the Company's proposals set out in their letter of
1st August, 1991 and confirmed by the Labour Court.
Following the resumed hearing the Court has again examined the
matters raised and again confirms that the Company is correct in
its interpretation of the above recommendation. The Court
conceded the Union's claim with regard to pre 1947 entrants only.
The Court accepts the Company's submission that the weeks' claw
back was implemented when employees transferred out of the running
department not withstanding the fact that they retained the same
rate of pay and seniority. The week therefore which should now be
refunded in line with the recommendation is that which was
deducted on transfer from the running department at the rate then
applicable.
~
Signed on behalf of Labour Court
Evelyn Owens
8th January, 1992 ---------------
J.F./U.S. Deputy Chairman