Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD94554 Case Number: AD9499 Section / Act: S13(9) Parties: IARNOD EIREANN - and - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION |
Appeal by the Company against Rights Commissioner's Recommendation No CW73/94.
Recommendation:
The Court having fully considered all of the views expressed by
the parties in their oral and written submissions concurs with the
findings of the Rights Commissioner on the compensation to be
paid.
It is the view of the Court that the #500 recommended should be
paid as an ex-gratia lump sum in full and final settlement of the
dispute. This payment is awarded as a consequence of the unique
circumstances of this case and has no relevance to expenses which
may have been incurred by the claimant.
The Rights Commissioners Recommendation should be amended
accordingly.
The Court so decides.
Division: Mr McGrath Mr Keogh Mr Walsh
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD94554 APPEAL DECISION NO. AD9994
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 13(9), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969
PARTIES:
IARNOD EIREANN
AND
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Appeal by the Company against Rights Commissioner's
Recommendation No CW73/94.
BACKGROUND:
2. 1. The worker concerned commenced employment with the
Company in 1981. He was appointed in 1991 to a
permanent position of signalman at Manulla Junction in
Co. Mayo. In 1994 the Company reorganised the duties in
the signal cabin at Claremorris Depot. A signalman
availed of early retirement, and a guard who was surplus
to requirements in Claremorris in that grade, was
appointed to the signalman post. The appointed worker
had carried out relief duties as a signalman at
Claremorris and lived in the area. The worker
concerned with the dispute also lived in Claremorris,
and commuted approximately 30 miles per day to Manulla.
He had expected to be offered the post.
2. The Union claimed that he was unfairly treated and
referred the dispute to a Rights Commissioner for
investigation and recommendation. On the 28th of
September, 1994 the rights Commissioner issued his
recommendation as follows:-
"I recommend that the Company offers and the worker
accepts the sum of #500 in lieu of travelling
expenses which he incurs and in settlement of the
dispute."
(The worker was named in the Rights Commissioner's
recommendation). On the 19th of October, 1994 the
Company appealed the recommendation to the Labour Court.
The Court heard the appeal in Castlebar on the 13th of
December, 1994.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Company gave no commitment to the worker concerned
when he was appointed signalman at Manulla that he would
be given first preference should a vacancy arise at
Claremorris. He accepted the Manulla post in the full
knowledge of this fact.
2. The worker who was appointed was more senior to the
claimant and held a certificate as a signalman.
3. It is generally the practice within the Company that
staff, surplus to requirements are settled as far as
possible in their own location and given consideration
over and above staff from outside the location. In this
case the Company implemented that procedure.
4. Many workers incur travelling expenses. If the Company
accepted the Rights Commissioner's recommendation it
would create serious repercussive problems for the
Company.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Company appointed a guard to the post of signalman
at Claremorris. The worker concerned is a fully
qualified signalman and has more seniority than the
appointed worker in the signalman grade.
2. The worker concerned felt that as an appointed signalman
he should have been assigned to the Claremorris post.
The Company denied him the opportunity to move to
Claremorris and to work nearer to his home. The Company
made every effort to facilitate all workers involved in
the transition. The only worker management did not take
into account was the claimant.
3. The Rights Commissioner went some way to addressing the
wrong done to the worker concerned and the Union
requests the Court to uphold the recommendation.
DECISION:
The Court having fully considered all of the views expressed by
the parties in their oral and written submissions concurs with the
findings of the Rights Commissioner on the compensation to be
paid.
It is the view of the Court that the #500 recommended should be
paid as an ex-gratia lump sum in full and final settlement of the
dispute. This payment is awarded as a consequence of the unique
circumstances of this case and has no relevance to expenses which
may have been incurred by the claimant.
The Rights Commissioners Recommendation should be amended
accordingly.
The Court so decides.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
3rd January, 1995 Tom McGrath
T.O'D./D.T. _______________
Deputy Chairman