Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD93605 Case Number: LCR14587 Section / Act: S26(1) Parties: IARNROD EIREANN - and - NATIONAL BUS AND RAIL UNION |
Claim by the Union on behalf of 5 workers for payment for time lost during the period of an industrial dispute.
Recommendation:
The Court having considered all of the views expressed by the
parties in their oral and written submissions does not find
grounds have been adduced to warrant concession of the Union's
claim.
The Court accordingly rejects the claim.
Division: MrMcGrath Mr Brennan Mr Rorke
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD93605 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR14587
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990
PARTIES:
IARNROD EIREANN
AND
NATIONAL BUS AND RAIL UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Claim by the Union on behalf of 5 workers for payment for
time lost during the period of an industrial dispute.
BACKGROUND:
2. 1. The dispute concerns 5 locomotive drivers attached to
Ceannt Station, Galway. In November, 1992 train
services were disrupted as a result of an industrial
dispute about Sunday rosters. When drivers reported for
work on Sunday 1st November, 1992 they refused to work
the new rosters proposed by the Company following the
issue of LCR13815 which recommended that the Company
schedule be operated by the workers concerned. The
Company informed the workers that if they were not
prepared to work the new Sunday roster there would be no
work for them on Monday or subsequent days although
week-day rosters were not in dispute. The train service
did not resume until Saturday 7th November, 1992. The
Union claimed that the workers were in fact locked out
and claimed payment for the period of the dispute.
Management rejected the claim.
2. The dispute was referred to the Labour Relations
Commission and a conciliation conference was held on the
25th August, 1993. As no agreement could be reached the
dispute was referred to the Labour Court on the 4th
October, 1993. The Court investigated the dispute in
Galway on the 28th September, 1994. (The earliest date
suitable to the parties).
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. Given the formal rostering arrangements which were in
operation for locomotive drivers the schedules which the
Company tried to implement (following the issue of
LCR13815) were inoperable. This was subsequently
recognised by all parties after discussions and a
further Labour Court investigation and recommendation
(LCR13935 refers).
2. The Company were in breach of the agreed procedures in
denying drivers time to consider LCR13815 and to clarify
and discuss problems unique to them in relation to that
recommendation.
3. Subsequently the Court investigation and recommendation
of January 1993 (LCR13935) recommended that a roster
along the lines proposed by the Unions be accepted.
4. Management had no right to deny the drivers concerned
the right to work in accordance with agreements in place
on 1st November, 1992 to 7th November, 1992 inclusive.
The drivers concerned should now be paid for the time
lost as a result of Management's action.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Court in LCR13815 recommended that the schedule
proposed by the Company should be operated and the
Sunday roster had been put forward on that basis. The
Court proposed that the Company and Unions consider
their differences taking account of the "social
dimension" referred to by the drivers. Despite this
recommendation and the willingness of the Company to
engage in such discussions the drivers took industrial
action. Despite their reservations other employees
accepted LCR13815 and agreed to work as rostered.
2. The work stoppage constituted industrial action. The
Company incurred a significant financial loss during the
period of the work stoppage.
3. The industrial action engaged in by the drivers was
supported by other staff and departed from Company/Union
agreements and breached procedure. Concession of the
claim would give rise to repercussive claims from other
staff.
4. Similar claims for payment to staff engaged in
industrial action have been the subject of previous
Labour Court Recommendations. The Court has upheld the
Company's policy of not making payment to staff engaged
in industrial action (LCR's 8272, 8769, 13780, 14336
refer).
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court having considered all of the views expressed by the
parties in their oral and written submissions does not find
grounds have been adduced to warrant concession of the Union's
claim.
The Court accordingly rejects the claim.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
28th October, 1994 Tom McGrath
T.O.D./M.M. _______________
Deputy Chairman
Note
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to
Mr. Tom O'Dea, Court Secretary.