Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD92410 Case Number: LCR13927 Section / Act: S26(1) Parties: IARNROD EIREANN - and - IRISH CONGRESS OF TRADE UNIONS;C.I.E. TRADE UNION GROUP;NATIONAL BUS AND RAIL UNION |
13402
Recommendation:
3. The Court has experienced some difficulty in dealing with this
issue insofar as the fact that the Company had not accepted the
terms of Recommendation 13402 was only disclosed to it at the
further hearing in September last.
The Court, in drafting its recommendation had been conscious of
the difficult financial environment in which Iarnrod Eireann
operates and thus sought to change the Company's decision in this
supplementary recommendation. It has not totally succeeded but
following discussions the Court is of the opinion that the Company
should acknowledge its obligation on this issue by making a
payment of #60 per person to all staff who have to date agreed and
implemented the reduced working hours.
The Court is not willing simply to amend Recommendation 13402
which in its opinion should stand, but as a means of settling the
question, until such times as the Company's fortunes change it
recommends that the terms above should be accepted by the workers
concerned.
Division: Mr O'Connell Mr McHenry Mr Rorke
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD92410 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR13927
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 26(4), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990
PARTIES: IARNROD EIREANN
and
IRISH CONGRESS OF TRADE UNIONS
(C.I.E. TRADE UNION GROUP)
NATIONAL BUS AND RAIL UNION
SUBJECT:
1. A dispute regarding the introduction of the 39 hour week
arising out of L.C.R. 13402.
BACKGROUND:
2. 1. The dispute was first investigated by the Labour Court on
20th August, 1991. Labour Court Recommendation No. 13402 as
follows was issued on 27th September, 1991.
"The Court has considered the submissions made by the
parties on the various issues which arise from the claim
for the reduction of hours in the Company. Whilst the
Court is aware of and acknowledges the very serious
financial plight of the Company, it is of the opinion
that proposals to modify even for a fixed duration, the
impact of the reduction of hours on the means of
calculation of overtime, on overtime arrangements
themselves, are not within the spirit of the relevant
terms of the P.N.R.
For this reason the Court does not consider that the
Company's proposal to modify the overtime divisor, or
amend the payment for the first hour of overtime should
be attached as conditions to the offer of a reduction of
hours.
On the other hand the Company is clearly entitled under
the same terms to (a) minimise any adverse effects on
costs and employment arising from the hours reduction
and (b) to achieve the objective of the Framework
Agreement that the reduction in working hours (time) be
effected without recourse to overtime working.
The Court notes that local discussions are continuing to
arrive at agreements on this issue which are relevant to
the particular working groups within the organisation.
It further notes that difficulties arise for both
parties concerning the fixing of a date of
implementation. In order to assist the resolution of
the problem the Court recommends as follows:
(a) that all sections of the pay roll who have agreed
on means of implementation should have the reduction in
hours introduced with effect from 1st July, 1991.
(b) that all sections who reach agreement on the means
of implementation within three weeks of the date of
issue of this recommendation should have the terms
implemented from the same date.
(c) in sections where the parties are unable to reach
agreement within the above terms the Court recommends
that the issue of an implementation date be the subject
of a further supplementary recommendation when the Court
will recommend a date having regard to the circumstances
which give rise to the delay.
2. By letter dated 11th March, 1992, the C.I.E. Trade Union
Group requested a Labour Court investigation on a dispute
arising out of L.C.R. 13402.
3. A Labour Court investigation took place on 18th September,
1992 (the earliest date suitable to all the parties).
RECOMMENDATION:
3. The Court has experienced some difficulty in dealing with this
issue insofar as the fact that the Company had not accepted the
terms of Recommendation 13402 was only disclosed to it at the
further hearing in September last.
The Court, in drafting its recommendation had been conscious of
the difficult financial environment in which Iarnrod Eireann
operates and thus sought to change the Company's decision in this
supplementary recommendation. It has not totally succeeded but
following discussions the Court is of the opinion that the Company
should acknowledge its obligation on this issue by making a
payment of #60 per person to all staff who have to date agreed and
implemented the reduced working hours.
The Court is not willing simply to amend Recommendation 13402
which in its opinion should stand, but as a means of settling the
question, until such times as the Company's fortunes change it
recommends that the terms above should be accepted by the workers
concerned.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
John O'Connell
___________________
18th January, 1993 Deputy Chairman.
J.F./J.C.
Note
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to
Mr. Jerome Forde, Court Secretary.