Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD93383 Case Number: LCR14289 Section / Act: S26(1) Parties: IRISH RAIL - and - NATIONAL BUS AND RAIL UNION |
Dispute concerning the implementation of Labour Court Recommendation No. LCR13823.
Recommendation:
The Court notes the efforts made by the parties to implement
LCR13823. Given all the circumstances and, noting that the
complainant is prepared to remain in Cork, the Court recommends
that the issue be resolved by the payment to him of an ex-gratia
lump sum of #1,000.
The Court so recommends.
Division: MrMcGrath Mr Brennan Mr Walsh
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD93383 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR14289
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990
PARTIES: IRISH RAIL
AND
NATIONAL BUS AND RAIL UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Dispute concerning the implementation of Labour Court
Recommendation No. LCR13823.
BACKGROUND:
2. On the 6th of October, 1992, the Labour Court investigated a
dispute between the parties concerning a claim by the Union that a
worker be reinstated as a signalman at Little Island, on the
Cork/Cobh line. In LCR13823, the Court recommended that the
worker be restored to Little Island but found that there were no
grounds to recommend the payment of compensation.
The parties met to discuss the implementation of LCR13823 but
agreement was not reached. The Union is seeking payment of
"expenses" of #4,000 to cover the period during which the worker
was based in Cork. Further complications arose from the necessity
to transfer the incumbent signalperson in Little Island to Cork,
in order to make way for his colleague. The dispute was the
subject of a conciliation conference at the Labour Relations
Commission, on the 22nd of April, 1993.
Both parties agreed to the referral of the dispute to the Court
for clarification. The Court investigated the dispute, in Cork,
on the 27th of October, 1993.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. When any rail operative is required to work for a period
away from his home depot, he is normally paid expenses for
that period. These expenses are distinct from compensation
for losses of earnings actually incurred by the worker.
2. The intricacies of the situation have meant that the
signalperson currently operating at Little Island will be
greatly inconvenienced by his transfer back to Cork (Details
supplied to the Court). In the meantime, the signalperson
whose transfer to Little Island was recommended by the Court,
has become disenchanted with the entire situation. He would
be prepared to remain in his Cork position if he was paid the
agreed expenses allowance for his period in Cork, to date.
This would enable the Little Island signalperson to remain in
his post.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Company has endeavoured to carry out the terms of
the Court's Recommendation in the only way in which it is
possible to do so, i.e., by transferring the claimant to
Little Island and his colleague from Little Island to Cork.
In view of the protracted nature of the negotiations, it
would appear to the Company that there is now no great
anxiety on the Union side to have the claimant transferred to
Little Island. He was re-settled in Cork in order to
facilitate his return to work after illness and to help him
in employment. He accepted the new position in writing and
he increased his earnings substantially, consequent on his
transfer. The Company does not consider that there are valid
grounds for payment of compensation to him and this has been
endorsed by the Labour Court.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court notes the efforts made by the parties to implement
LCR13823. Given all the circumstances and, noting that the
complainant is prepared to remain in Cork, the Court recommends
that the issue be resolved by the payment to him of an ex-gratia
lump sum of #1,000.
The Court so recommends.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
12th December, 1993. Tom McGrath
M.K./A.L. _______________
Deputy Chairman
Note
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to
Mr. Michael Keegan, Court Secretary.