Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD95605 Case Number: AD9590 Section / Act: S13(9) Parties: IARNROD EIREANN - and - A WORKER |
Appeal by the worker against Rights Commissioner's Recommendation No. CW 241/94.
Recommendation:
The Court, having fully considered all of the views expressed by
the parties in their oral and written submissions, does not find
grounds have been put forward to alter the findings of the Rights
Commissioner.
Accordingly, the Rights Commissioner's Recommendation is upheld
and the Court rejects the appeal of the claimant.
The Court so decides.
Given all the circumstances of the case, the Court would suggest
that the Company continue to seek to put in place arrangements
which would enable a voluntary severance to be effected.
Division: Mr McGrath Mr Keogh Mr Walsh
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD95605 APPEAL DECISION NO. AD9095
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 13(9), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969
PARTIES:
IARNROD EIREANN
AND
A WORKER
SUBJECT:
Appeal by the worker against Rights Commissioner's
Recommendation No. CW 241/94.
BACKGROUND:
The dispute concerns the non-selection of the worker, an
electrician employed on locomotive maintenance, for voluntary
redundancy. He claims that he should have been offered
voluntary redundancy in late 1993, i.e., that as the senior
electrician he should have had first option to retire. The
Company claims that the worker did not object to the
voluntary severance being offered to a colleague of his,
until matters had been finalised. The dispute was the
subject of investigation by a Rights Commissioner, who found
that there was some conflict in the respective statements of
the parties as to whether the worker made clear to the
Company his wish to retire. He found no indication that the
worker was deliberately ignored. He also found that the
Company had acted in good faith. He recommended that the
worker accept that his colleague was properly offered
voluntary severance and that the Company should undertake to
investigate its current requirements in the Limerick depot.
The worker appealed the Rights Commissioner's Recommendation
on the 19th of October, 1995, in accordance with Section
13(9) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969. The Court heard
the appeal on the 27th of November, 1995.
WORKER'S ARGUMENTS:
1. Although both electricians were anxious to retire under the
Company's severance scheme, once it was decided that only one
position would be suppressed, then it is clear that the
senior electrician should have been selected.
2. The Company's claim that the retirement of the colleague was
agreed at a meeting attended by the claimant is refuted. At
that meeting it was not mentioned that the colleague would be
retiring.
3. Throughout the entire period, the works manager was aware
that both workers wished to avail of voluntary severance. He
was in a position to deal with the issue in accordance with
custom and practice and to keep both abreast of developments.
This, however, was not done. The Company appear to have been
anxious to retain the claimant whilst releasing his
colleague.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
1. It was unambiguously agreed at a meeting attended by the
claimant and trade union representatives that one
"job-suppression" would be achieved and that the claimant's
colleague would be afforded voluntary severance.
2. The engineering craftworker staffing at Limerick prior to
agreement consisted of 1 coachmaker, 6 fitters and 2
electricians. Electrical maintenance on carriage stock
(substantially train lighting) and locomotives, were
allocated separately to the colleague and the claimant,
respectively. In considering the feasibility of
job-reductions both the Company and staff representatives
were agreed on the need to retain both the coachmaker and
electrician skills. However, because of the extent of
electrical cover required it was further agreed that in order
to sustain the suppression of an electrician's position,
fitters would require training to undertake basic electrical
maintenance requirements. In this context, bearing in mind
the contrast in the complexity/skill content of the carriage
and locomotive maintenance requirement, it was agreed that
fitters would be trained in basic carriage maintenance
primarily train lighting. In addition there was blanket
resistance to allowing staff other than electricians work on
locomotives.
Accordingly, the colleague who covered the carriage
maintenance duties and was amenable to voluntary severance
became the obvious candidate for severance. It was,
therefore, readily agreed that he should be afforded
severance. The claimant, though present at the meeting where
the severance was agreed, raised no objection.
3. In his findings and Recommendation, the Rights Commissioner
clearly acknowledged the particular context in which the
claimant's colleague was afforded voluntary severance. In
doing so he specifically indicated his belief that the
Company "acted in good faith" and that the claimant was not
unfairly dealt with.
4. The Company has examined its current requirements in Limerick
in an effort to resolve the claimant's perceived grievance.
This has not proved fruitful and, accordingly, it appears
that he cannot be accommodated before his normal retirement
in December, 1996.
DECISION:
The Court, having fully considered all of the views expressed by
the parties in their oral and written submissions, does not find
grounds have been put forward to alter the findings of the Rights
Commissioner.
Accordingly, the Rights Commissioner's Recommendation is upheld
and the Court rejects the appeal of the claimant.
The Court so decides.
Given all the circumstances of the case, the Court would suggest
that the Company continue to seek to put in place arrangements
which would enable a voluntary severance to be effected.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
20th December, 1995 Tom McGrath
M.K./A.K. ---------------
Deputy Chairman
Note
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to
Mr. Michael Keegan, Court Secretary.