Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD9246 Case Number: LCR13590 Section / Act: S20(1) Parties: IRISH RAIL - and - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION |
Dispute concerning the payment of compensation for the loss of Sunday duty to 4 depotpersons and one senior depotperson.
Recommendation:
5. The Court having considered the submissions made by the
parties and particularly having regard to the fact that the
apportionment of the compensation is not strictly related to the
work actually lost, recommends that each of the 5 workers
concerned be paid the sum of £800 which in turn is no longer
strictly related to money saved by the Company.
Division: Mr O'Connell Mr McHenry Mr Walsh
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD9246 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR13590
THE LABOUR COURT
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 20(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969
PARTIES: IRISH RAIL
and
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Dispute concerning the payment of compensation for the loss of
Sunday duty to 4 depotpersons and one senior depotperson.
BACKGROUND:
2. 1. On 24th July, 1990, an agreement was reached that 2
separately staffed depots (goods and coaching) in Waterford
would be amalgamated (LCR12783 refers). As a result 25 rail
operatives, including the 4 depotpersons were each given £500
in compensation.
2. A further claim was made by the 4 depotpersons and a
senior depotperson for loss of Sunday duty which resulted from
the amalgamation. Prior to the amalgamation, the senior
depotperson worked every Sunday accompanied by a depotperson
working on rotation every 4 weeks. The Union claimed twice
yearly loss for the 5 workers. The Company offered £3,860 in
compensation (one year's loss) to be divided equally among the
workers, i.e., £772 each.
3. The Union rejected the equal distribution formula as it
did not adequately compensate the senior depotperson who
worked every Sunday. The dispute was referred to the Labour
Relations Commission and a conciliation conference was held on
12th March, 1991. A solution was sought based on the
distribution of the sum offered by the Company in proportion
to the Sunday duty done by each worker, i.e., £1,930 for the
senior depotperson and £482 for each of the 4 depotpersons.
4. This solution was rejected by the Union on the grounds
that the depotpersons had already been offered £772 each. The
issue in dispute was the compensation to the senior
depotperson. The Union then sought a Labour Court
investigation which was refused by the Labour Relations
Commission. The Union explored with the Company the
possibility of having a Rights Commissioner investigate the
matter on the basis that the Rights Commissioner's
recommendation would be binding on both parties.
5. The Union by letters dated 3rd and 13th January, 1992
submitted the dispute to the Labour Court under Section 20(1)
of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969. The workers agreed to
be bound by the recommendation of the Court. A Labour Court
investigation took place in Waterford on 19th February, 1992.
UNION ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Company offered £3,860 to be divided equally between
by the 5 workers involved in this claim. This took no account
of the fact that one worker was on duty every Sunday while the
other four worked on every fourth Sunday. The Company offered
£772 to each of the workers. This was acceptable to the 4
depotpersons but was unacceptable to the senior depotperson
who worked every Sunday. The Company then offered to divide
the £3,860 in proporotion to the Sundays worked by each
worker. This would have given £1,930 to the senior
depotperson and £482 each to the 4 depotpersons. This offer
could not be accepted by the Union and it was forced to revise
its claim to £772 for each of the depotpersons and £3,088 for
the senior depotperson.
2. The workers are entitled to reasonable compensation to
cushion them from the effect of the loss of earnings. The
Union's claim for 2 years' loss of earnings is reasonable and
indicated an acknowledgment of the Company's financial
position. It is difficult for workers to accept an offer if
that offer is less favourable than a previous offer.
COMPANY ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Company is in a difficult financial position, having
incurred losses in 1991 of £4 million. The Company has taken
steps to alleviate the situation (details supplied). In
addition to cost saving measures, the Company has had to place
an embargo on the processing of all special or cost increasing
claims, in accordance with the terms of the PESP.
2. The Company is not in a position to enhance the offer
already made. The real issue is how the compensation is to be
divided among the 5 workers. The Company in the amalgamation
of the 2 depots has acted in a responsible manner and has made
every effort to resolve the dispute in a fair and equitable
manner.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. The Court having considered the submissions made by the
parties and particularly having regard to the fact that the
apportionment of the compensation is not strictly related to the
work actually lost, recommends that each of the 5 workers
concerned be paid the sum of £800 which in turn is no longer
strictly related to money saved by the Company.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
John O'Connell
-----------------
9th March, 1992
J.F/U.S. Deputy Chairman
NOTE:
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to
Mr. Jerome Forde, Court Secretary.