Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD93706 Case Number: AD9433 Section / Act: S13(9) Parties: IRISH RAIL - and - A WORKER;SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION |
Appeal against Rights Commissioner's Recommendation No. DC 128/93.
Recommendation:
Given the unique circumstances of this case, the Court finds no
grounds to amend the recommendation of the Rights Commissioner
and, accordingly, upholds it and rejects the appeal of the
Company.
Division: MrMcGrath Mr Brennan Mr Walsh
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD93706 APPEAL DECISION NO. AD3394
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990
PARTIES:
IRISH RAIL
AND
A WORKER
(REPRESENTED BY SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION)
SUBJECT:
1. Appeal against Rights Commissioner's Recommendation No. DC
128/93.
BACKGROUND:
2. The worker concerned commenced working in the maintenance
department, North Wall in July 1968, and transferred to the
Points Yard in 1977. From 1977, the worker supervised the
clocking in and out of all staff four times a day, including
lunch time, from 1.00 p.m. to 1.30 p.m.. The worker was paid
overtime at premium rate for the half hour at lunch time.
On 23rd February, 1993 the worker's lunch time clock
supervision was stopped. His overtime on Saturday was also
reduced to 5 hours. The Union's claim for the restoration of
the worker's lunch time supervision was rejected by the
Company and the dispute was referred to the Rights
Commissioners service. The Rights Commissioner, in his
Recommendation of 9th December, 1993 stated:
"Consequently, having regard to all factors of the case
and entirely without precedent to any other reductions
in overtime introduced by the Company under the
provisions of their current Productivity Agreement with
the Union for these grades, I recommend that Iarnrod
Eireann make an ex-gratia lump sum payment of #400 to
the worker, in full and final settlement of his claim
and entirely without prejudice to their overall policy
in this area."
(The worker was named in the above Recommendation).
The Recommendation was appealed by the Company to the Labour
Court on 31st December, 1993 under Section 13(9) of the
Industrial Relations Act, 1969. A Labour Court hearing took
place on 7th March, 1994.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The worker concerned supervised staff clocking in and
out at lunch time (1.00 p.m. to 1.30 p.m.) for a number of
years. This supervison, which was paid at premium overtime
rates, was known to the depot superintendent. Correspondence
from the Company (details supplied to the Court) prove that
this was an established custom.
2. The worker concerned has worked for many years for the
Company and has complied at all times with procedures. There
was no negotiation by the Company with the worker when his
supervisory overtime was discontinued.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Company decided to discontinue the policy of the
worker's lunch break being worked at a premuim rate of
overtime. The decision was part of a general policy on
overtime, to increase cost/payroll efficiency.
2. The worker concerned has worked overtime on Saturdays
since September, 1992 and, as a result, his earnings have
increased over what he earned when doing lunch time
supervisory overtime. The worker has sustained no real loss
in earnings.
3. A reduction in overtime occurred for other workers in
the Company. Granting a compensation payment to the worker
concerned would lead to similar claims from other workers.
DECISION:
Given the unique circumstances of this case, the Court finds no
grounds to amend the recommendation of the Rights Commissioner
and, accordingly, upholds it and rejects the appeal of the
Company.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
9th May, 1994. Tom McGrath
C.O'N./A.L. _______________
Deputy Chairman
Note
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to
Mr. Ciaran O'Neill, Court Secretary.