Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD92146 Case Number: AD92154 Section / Act: S13(9) Parties: IRISH RAIL - and - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION |
Appeal by the Union against Rights Commissioner's Recommendation B.C. 417/91 concerning a claim for compensation for guards for the placing of lamps on level-crossing gates on the Drogheda to Kingscourt line.
Recommendation:
In the circumstances of this case the Court is of the view that
the recommendation of the Rights Commissioner is reasonable and
should be accepted. (The Court notes that the parties have
agreed that the offer/recommendation should read as #1 per day.)
The Court so decides.
Division: Ms Owens Mr Brennan Mr Walsh
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD92146 APPEAL DECISION NO. AD15492
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 13(9), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969
PARTIES: IRISH RAIL
and
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Appeal by the Union against Rights Commissioner's
Recommendation B.C. 417/91 concerning a claim for compensation
for guards for the placing of lamps on level-crossing gates on
the Drogheda to Kingscourt line.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Drogheda to Kingscourt line is a freight line only.
Normally one train operates in each direction on a Monday to
Friday basis between the hours of 5.00a.m. and 1.00p.m.. The
guards from the Drogheda Station carry out the duty on the line
on a roster basis. The guards are required to open and close
the gates at level crossings. In the interests of safety the
Company decided that during the hours of darkness the guards
should place electric hand lamps on the gates when closed across
the public road to allow the train to pass. The Union claims
that an allowance of #8 per day should be paid for the duty
concerned. The Company claims that its offer of #1 per day is
reasonable in all the circumstances. The dispute was referred
to a Rights Commissioner who investigated it on 6th January,
1992. In the interim the guards agreed to carry out the duty
concerned pending the outcome of industrial relations
procedures. The Rights Commissioner issued the following
recommendation on 24th January, 1992.
In the light of the above, my recommendation is that the
Trade Union should accept the offer of management of #1 per
week as an interim payment and that the outcome of the
productivity discussions should be awaited by both parties.
In the event of these productivity discussions being
inconclusive insofar as the issue of the placing of lamps
for level cross gates/Navan/Kingscourt branch line is
concerned then the matter may be referred back to me for a
final recommendation.
The payment of #1 per week recommended by me should be
effected from October 1991 and be applicable for each week
of the year.
The Union appealed against the Recommendation under Section
13(9) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969. The Court heard
the appeal on 13th April, 1992.
UNIONS' ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. While there is an agreement whereby the Drogheda train
guards open the crossing gates to allow the train to
proceed, there is no agreement that the guards should carry
and place lamps on the gates. This is a development
generally unique to the Drogheda Kingscourt line.
2. The placing of lamps on the gates is an onerous
procedure which is carried out at nine crossings on the
line. It also places additional responsibility on the
guard as failure to provide proper illumination at a
crossing could result in a serious road accident.
3. The Company has recognised the validity of the Union's
claim. Unfortunately the Company could not agree to a more
realistic offer. As the claim is unique to the Drogheda
guards it should not be included in the on-going
productivity discussions. The claim should be considered
on the basis of the more onerous duties and additional
responsibility placed on the guards.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The guards on the Drogheda to Kingscourt line are in
receipt of an allowance of #4 per day for opening and
closing the gates on the line. The Union's claim for an
additional #8 per day for placing lamps on the same gates
is totally unrealistic. The Company considers that a total
payment of #5 per day is ample compensation for all the
duties performed including the placing of lamps on gates.
2. It has been established custom and practice for guards
to place lamps on the level-crossing gates. The battery
operated lamps are a safety measure for all concerned and
no financial benefit accrues to the Company.
3. On the basis of the Rights Commissioner's
Recommendation the allowance of #1 per day (i.e. #5 per
week) would be made throughout the year. During the summer
months when there is sufficient daylight in the mornings it
may not be necessary to place lamps on the gates. The
Company does not agree that there is any justification for
paying the additional #1 per day on the days when there is
no requirement to place lamps.
4. The Company requests the Court to recommend acceptance
of the Company's offer of #1 per day payment in respect of
placing of the lamps on the gates for each day on which the
duty is performed.
DECISION:
In the circumstances of this case the Court is of the view that
the recommendation of the Rights Commissioner is reasonable and
should be accepted. (The Court notes that the parties have
agreed that the offer/recommendation should read as #1 per day.)
The Court so decides.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Evelyn Owens
____________________
28th April, 1992
A.S./N.Ni.M. Deputy Chairman