Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD93249 Case Number: LCR14101 Section / Act: S26(1) Parties: IRISH RAIL - and - NATIONAL BUS AND RAIL UNION;SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION |
Dispute concerning an unofficial work stoppage at Kent Station, Cork on 8th March, 1993.
Recommendation:
11. The Court has considered the submissions made by the parties
in connection with the incident in question.
The Court is of the opinion that it would be very short sighted of
both the Employer and the Unions if they were simply to deal with
the stoppage without examining the working arrangements out of
which it arose in the first place and the Court therefore strongly
recommends that the parties get together without further delay to
improve the rostering and manning arrangements of Special Link
Drivers in the Cork Locomotive Depots.
The Court nevertheless does not consider that it can condone the
unofficial action which occurred and recommends that all who
participated in the stoppage - including the driver whose initial
refusal gave rise to the trouble - should forfeit an hour's pay.
Division: Mr O'Connell Mr Brennan Mr Walsh
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD93249 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR14101
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990
PARTIES: IRISH RAIL
and
NATIONAL BUS AND RAIL UNION
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Dispute concerning an unofficial work stoppage at Kent
Station, Cork on 8th March, 1993.
BACKGROUND:
2. The worker at the centre of this dispute is employed as a
special link driver. Special link drivers provide relief for
regular link drivers and perform all special workings in the
Locomotive Depots. The workers' normal working week is spread
over six days with Sunday as their rest day. However, the workers
provide seven-day cover and are normally rostered for Sunday
working.
3. Under a local agreement a driver can decline to work on three
Sundays a year and expect to be rostered on the first available
job after 09.00 hours on the Monday provided the jobs before 09.00
hours are covered.
4. The worker concerned rested on Sunday, 7th March, 1993. On
that day the telephoned the foreman to enquire about his starting
time he following Monday. He was informed that he was rostered to
start at 5.00 a.m.. The worker informed the foreman that he would
not be starting at that time and that he would be reporting for
duty at 12.30 p.m., the first available duty after 09.00 a.m.
which was in accordance with the agreement.
5. The worker reported for duty at 12.30 p.m. and was informed
that he would not be allowed sign on for duty until he had seen
the district manager at 2.30 p.m.
6. Unofficial industrial action, involving a number of workers,
commenced resulting in no trains leaving Cork Station between 2.30
p.m. and 6 p.m.. A resumption of work was agreed on the basis
that the worker concerned would be allowed sign on for duty (in
effect get paid for the day) and the matter in dispute would be
referred to a third party. The other workers involved were also
paid for the period of the industrial action. The Company
contends that this matter was also to be referred to a third
party, whilst the Unions maintain that the only issue in dispute
was the worker concerned being allowed to sign on for duty.
7. The dispute was referred to the Labour Relations Commission.
Conciliation conferences were held on 16th and 31st March, 1993.
As no agreement was reached the Commission, with the consent of
the parties, referred the dispute to the Labour Court on 6th
April, 1993 for investigation and recommendation under Section
26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Court hearing took
place on 10th May, 1993.
N.B.R.U.'S ARGUMENTS:
8. 1. The worker concerned, who is a member of this Union, acted
in accordance with a local agreement. He contacted the Union
about the matter on the morning in question and efforts were
made to resolve the issue before being overtaken by events
(details supplied to the Court) at Cork Station.
2. The Company was in breach of the local agreement and in
refusing to allow the worker to sign on for duty was also in
breach of procedures for dealing with such disputes.
3. The main problem in this case is the shortage of drivers
at Kent Station. This results in the workers having to work
seven days a week for long periods in order to provide
adequate cover. It was as a result of this that the agreement
on Sunday resting came into being.
4. The Company is in breach of the agreement for a return to
work in seeking to recoup money from the workers involved in
the industrial action.
S.I.P.T.U.'S ARGUMENTS:
9. 1. The agreement on Sunday resting was reached in order that
a worker may enjoy the full benefits of having a Sunday off.
Having an early start on the following Monday militates
against these benefits. The driver concerned, in refusing to
report for work at 5.00 a.m. on the Monday morning, was acting
in accordance with this agreement.
2. There were other workers available to do the 5.00 a.m.
duty.
3. The shortage of drivers at Kent Station was the underlying
factor in this dispute. The Unions have made efforts in the
past to address this problem.
4. The Company agreed to pay the workers involved in the
industrial action and it appears now that the Company is
reneging on this agreement.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
10. 1. The Company, in rostering the worker for a 5.00 a.m.
start, was acting in accordance with the agreement on Sunday
resting as there were no other drivers available. If he had a
perceived grievance he should have processed it through the
normal channels.
2. It has never been Company policy to pay workers involved
in industrial action. This policy has been endorsed by the
Court on numerous occasions.
3. The payments were made in the context of the over-riding
need to provide services to a large number of passengers who
were stranded and on the basis that the issues would be
referred to a third party. In no other circumstances would
such payments have been made.
4. These payments must be recovered and must not be seen as a
precedent or change in Company policy.
RECOMMENDATION:
11. The Court has considered the submissions made by the parties
in connection with the incident in question.
The Court is of the opinion that it would be very short sighted of
both the Employer and the Unions if they were simply to deal with
the stoppage without examining the working arrangements out of
which it arose in the first place and the Court therefore strongly
recommends that the parties get together without further delay to
improve the rostering and manning arrangements of Special Link
Drivers in the Cork Locomotive Depots.
The Court nevertheless does not consider that it can condone the
unofficial action which occurred and recommends that all who
participated in the stoppage - including the driver whose initial
refusal gave rise to the trouble - should forfeit an hour's pay.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
John O'Connell
_____________________
1st June, 1993. Deputy Chairman
M.D./J.C.
Note
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to
Mr. Michael Daughen, Court Secretary.