Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD9257 Case Number: AD92135 Section / Act: S13(9) Parties: IARNROD EIREANN - and - TRANSPORT SALARIED STAFFS' ASSOCIATION |
Appeal by the Company against Rights Commissioner's recommendation B.C. 410/91 concerning compensation for loss of overtime for one worker.
Recommendation:
5. Having considered the submissions from the parties the Court
is of the view that the Rights Commissioner's recommendation is
fair and reasonable in the circumstances and should be accepted by
the parties.
The Court accordingly upholds the Rights Commissioner's
recommendation and rejects the appeal.
The Court so decides.
Division: Mr O'Connell Mr Collins Ms Ni Mhurchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD9257 APPEAL DECISION NO. AD13592
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 13(9), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969
PARTIES: IARNROD EIREANN
and
TRANSPORT SALARIED STAFFS' ASSOCIATION
SUBJECT:
1. Appeal by the Company against Rights Commissioner's
recommendation B.C. 410/91 concerning compensation for loss of
overtime for one worker.
BACKGROUND:
2. In April, 1984 a temporary Locomotive Body Overhaul Section
was established at the Compnay's Inchicore works. The worker
concerned with the dispute, who was a Foreman Class 2 in the
Maintenance Planning Section, was moved to the temporary
Locomotive Body Overhaul Section and placed in charge. He was
paid at the rate of Foreman Class I. In 1985 he was advised by
Management that he was being paid in error and his correct rate
was Foreman Class 2. The issue was referred to a Rights
Commissioner (in February, 1986) who recommended that the worker
be paid Foreman Class I rate while he continued to work at the
locomotive overhaul. He continued to work in that section until
10th January, 1989 when he was transferred to the carriage shop.
In August, 1989 he was transferred to his original position as
Foreman Class 2 in the Maintenance Planning Section. In October,
1989 a surplus Foreman Class 2 was transferred to the Locomotive
Body Overhaul Section and was paid at Class 2 rate. The
Association claimed that the worker concerned should have been
returned to the Locomotive Body Overhaul Section and submitted a
claim for loss of earnings on behalf of the worker. Management
rejected the claim. The issue was referred to a Rights
Commissioner for investigation. On the 10th January, 1992 the
Rights Commissioner issued his recommendation as follows:
"Having investigated the matter and having given full and
careful consideration to the points made by both parties I
have come to the conclusion that there are elements in the
situation supporting the contentions of each party.
Therefore, I believe that the best approach would be to
recognise this and for the recommendation of mine to take on
board this acknowledgement. My recommendation is that
Iarnrod Eireann should pay to the worker the sum of £1,200
and that this be accepted by him in full and final settlement
of all claims on the Company in relation to this matter".
(The worker was named in the Rights Commissioner's
recommendation).
On the 21st January, 1992 the Company appealed the
recommendation to the Labour Court under Section 13(9) of the
Industrial Relations Act, 1969. The Court heard the appeal
on the 12th February, 1992.
ASSOCIATION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The worker concerned was asked by Management to transfer
to the Carriage Shop on the understanding that he would be
returning to the Locomotive Body Overhaul Section. He was not
returned to that Section. In the Rights Commissioner's
recommendation of 1986 it was stated that the worker concerned
should be paid at Foreman Class I rate "for the duration of
the fleet overhaul". If the worker concerned had been allowed
to remain on the Locomotive Overhauls programme the Company
would have had to continue to pay the Class I rate. The
Association contends that the Company removed the worker from
the project in order to avoid complying with the Rights
Commissioner's recommendation to pay the worker at Foreman
Class I rate. The worker concerned was a victim of the
Company's manipulation of the situation which was contrary to
the spirit of the agreement reached on the issue.
2. The worker has suffered a loss of earnings amounting to
approximately £6,200 which he would have earned in week-day
and Saturday overtime earnings had he continued to work in the
Locomotive Body Overhaul supervisory post. In subsequent
discussions it was conceded by the Company that the effects on
the worker's level of earnings in the years in question were
as follows:
September, 1988 - September, 1989 - £15,300
September, 1989 - September, 1990 - £13,950
September, 1990 - September, 1991 - £17,185
Despite the obvious adverse effects on the worker's earnings
arising from his not being returned to the Locomotive Body
Overhaul Section, the maximum amount of compensation offered
by the Company was half the annual difference in Foreman Class
2 and Class I rates of pay which is approximately £550 on
present scales. This sum is not acceptable to the Association
in view of the substantial loss of earnings of the worker.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Company sees the claim as divided into two parts - (1)
compensation for loss of overtime earnings and (2)
compensation for loss of superior duty. The Company rejected
the claim for compensation for loss of overtime on the grounds
that overtime in the Inchicore works varies from workshop to
workshop and from time to time during the year. The reason
for the loss of earnings in the case of the worker concerned
was because of the Government's decision to discontinue
funding the carriage building programme. Some workers left on
voluntary severance while others were placed in existing
vacancies, or in other positions resulting in colleagues
losing superior duty or overtime. The Company has declined
similar claims for loss of overtime earnings in the past
(details supplied to the Court). The worker concerned has
been fortunate in that shortly after he transferred to
Maintenance Planning he was afforded, and availed of an
opportunity to work overtime. In 1990 and 1991 he also worked
overtime. The reduction in his earnings in 1989, 1990 is
offset by an increase of £3,235 in his earnings for 1991. In
the Inchicore works during the course of last year overtime
was worked in various workshops. Most of this overtime is now
finished. There is no question of compensation to any of the
staff for loss of overtime.
2. On the issue of loss of superior duty the Company contends
that the main factor in this loss is the discontinuance of the
Company's carriage building business. The completion of the
new carriage building work created many surplus staff. In
particular Foremen Class 1 and 2 posts had to be found for
workers in those grades. When the worker concerned
transferred back to the Maintenance Planning Section in
August, 1989 he lost his superior duty payment as a Foreman
Class 1. His only claim for compensation is for loss of
superior duty between August and October, 1989 and the Company
has made an offer in this regard. Taking into account the
quick recovery from a position of reduced overtime earnings
and the short duration (6 weeks) during which the worker is
entitled to claim for loss of superior duty the Company feels
that the amount of compensation awarded by the Rights
Commissioner is excessive.
DECISION:
5. Having considered the submissions from the parties the Court
is of the view that the Rights Commissioner's recommendation is
fair and reasonable in the circumstances and should be accepted by
the parties.
The Court accordingly upholds the Rights Commissioner's
recommendation and rejects the appeal.
The Court so decides.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Evelyn Owens
____________________
5th March, 1992. Deputy Chairman
T.O'D/J.C.