Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD92373 Case Number: LCR13777 Section / Act: S20(1) Parties: IRISH RAIL - and - SHOPWORKERS TRADE UNION GROUP |
Loss of earnings due to change in shift roster.
Recommendation:
5. Having considered the submissions of the parties to this
dispute the Court has come to the conclusion that the period used
by the Company in the calculation was appropriate in the
circumstances.
The Court therefore recommends that it be accepted by the workers
concerned.
Division: MrMcGrath Mr McHenry Mr Walsh
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD92373 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR13777
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 20(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969
PARTIES: IRISH RAIL
and
SHOPWORKERS TRADE UNION GROUP
SUBJECT:
1. Loss of earnings due to change in shift roster.
BACKGROUND:
2. The DART traction maintenance team was set up in 1984 when the
DART was introduced. A three cycle shift cover was provided by
five electricians and five engineering operatives. The staff was
reduced to eight in May/June, 1988 with the resignation of one
electrician and one engineering operative. In the period
1988/1990, a review of the maintenance requirements took place,
after which the three cycle cover was reduced to a sixteen hour,
two cycle cover. Agreement was reached between the parties
regarding compensation in respect of shift allowance on the basis
of an agreed formula of two and one half times the annual loss.
In September, 1990, lump-sum payments based on the loss of shift
earnings for the period July, 1987 to June, 1988 were paid to the
eight workers concerned. The Union claims that the method used by
the Company to calculate the amount of compensation was in breach
of normal practice. The Company rejected the claim. A proposal
by the Union to refer the matter to the Labour Relations
Commission was rejected by the Company. Local level discussions
failed to resolve the issue and the Union referred the matter to
the Labour Court under Section 20(1) of the Industrial Relations
Act, 1969, and agreed to be bound by the Court's Recommendation.
The Court hearing took place on 7th September, 1992.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. At a meeting held on 30th July, 1990, management agreed to
pay compensation payments equal to two and one half times the
loss of shift payments. It was the Union's understanding that
in accordance with normal practice the amount of compensation
paid would be based on losses incurred in the previous year,
1989/1990.
2. The normal practice within the Company is that
compensation payments are always based on the previous year's
earnings. The Company's departure from this practice resulted
in the compensation payments of the workers concerned being
reduced by between #300/#400.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. There were two elements to the claim for loss of earnings
compensation. The first of these was a claim for compensation
for loss of overtime earnings. The Company resisted the claim
for compensation because it was expected that the overtime
levels would be maintained. The Company did, however, agree
to pay compensation in respect of the reduction in shift
premium from one-fifth to one-sixth in the normal way i.e. on
the basis of an agreed formula of two and one half times the
annual loss. It should be noted that shift premium applies to
all hours worked, i.e., flat time and overtime.
2. The level of overtime worked by the workers concerned was
artificially high in the period 1988/1990 as a direct
consequence of the delay in reaching agreement with the Union
on the implementation of the revised shift roster.
3. At the request of the Union, staff levels appropriate for
16-hour shift working continued to maintain a 24-hour shift
arrangement by working overtime throughout the course of the
negotiations. It is not appropriate to use this overtime in
justification of a claim for loss of shift earnings.
4. Compensation payments were calculated by the application
of the agreed formula of two and one half times to hours
worked "in the period July, 1987 to June, 1988, which was the
last year of the 24-hour roster with a full 10-man cover".
5. The Union could not be under any misapprehension regarding
the basis on which compensation payments would be calculated.
It would have been inconsistent with the Company's position
had it maintained that compensation payments for loss of
overtime earnings could only be based on hours worked in the
year ended June, 1988 and then concede compensation for
reduction in shift premium based on hours worked in the year
ended August, 1990.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. Having considered the submissions of the parties to this
dispute the Court has come to the conclusion that the period used
by the Company in the calculation was appropriate in the
circumstances.
The Court therefore recommends that it be accepted by the workers
concerned.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Tom McGrath
______________________
2nd October, 1992 Deputy Chairman.
F.B./J.C.
Note
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to
Mr. Fran Brennan, Court Secretary.