Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD94705 Case Number: AD956 Section / Act: S13(9) Parties: IARNROD EIREANN - and - A WORKER |
Appeal by the Company of Rights Commissioner's Recommendation No. CW 220/94.
Recommendation:
The Court, given the particular circumstances of this case, finds
no grounds to overturn the Recommendation of the Rights
Commissioner.
Accordingly, the Court upholds the Rights Commissioner's
Recommendation.
The Court so decides.
Division: Mr Flood Mr Keogh Mr Walsh
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD94705 APPEAL DECISION NO. AD695
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 13(9), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969
PARTIES:
IARNROD EIREANN
AND
A WORKER
SUBJECT:
1. Appeal by the Company of Rights Commissioner's Recommendation
No. CW 220/94.
BACKGROUND:
2. The worker in question, a Locomotive driver, claimed that a
voluntary severance package had been offered to drivers on
the basis of seniority. He applied for the package and was
denied it, although another driver, junior to him, was
allowed to avail of the package. The Company contended that
the employer should have the right to decide who could avail
of redundancy and that the agreed principle of seniority had
been departed from in view of the special circumstances at
the DART depot in Fairview. The dispute was investigated by
a Rights Commissioner who found that the arguments of the
worker had merit. He recommended that the Company offer the
worker an appropriate lump sum to be considered as a
redundancy payment in settlement of the dispute. The Company
appealed the Recommendation on the 2nd of December, 1994.
The Court heard the appeal on the 25th of January, 1995.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The question of Voluntary Severance arose in the context
of lengthy negotiations between the Company and the
Trade Unions (S.I.P.T.U./N.B.R.U.) concerning a
Productivity Agreement for Rail Operative Staff.
2. While the principle of seniority was agreed between the
Company and the Trade Unions, it was departed from given
the special circumstances at the DART depot in Fairview,
i.e., there was a 'restricted Driver', who was released
by agreement although he was not the most senior of the
applicants.
3. Agreement for the departure from the seniority
principles was formally set out in writing by the Trade
Unions (details supplied to the Court).
4. Although there were others more senior to the restricted
driver, three colleagues who sought Voluntary Severance
did not object to his release.
5. Should the Court support the Rights Commissioner's
Recommendation for compensation, the Company would be
faced with claims from other unsuccessful colleagues of
the worker. One such claim would, inevitably, follow
from the applicant who was senior to the worker. Staff
in other locations, who have been unsuccessful in their
application to retire under the Company's Voluntary
Severance Scheme, could also seek compensation.
WORKER'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Voluntary Severance package was offered on the basis
of seniority, as confirmed by the Company in writing
(details supplied to Court).
2. The other worker, who was released due to 'special
circumstances', was working full-time on a full salary.
Accordingly, he should have been treated no differently
in relation to the redundancy package.
3. When the issue of release of the 'restricted driver'
arose, the Union approached some senior drivers to see
if there was any objection to his release. The
claimant, who was not approached would have objected
strongly to the other driver's release.
DECISION:
The Court, given the particular circumstances of this case, finds
no grounds to overturn the Recommendation of the Rights
Commissioner.
Accordingly, the Court upholds the Rights Commissioner's
Recommendation.
The Court so decides.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
6th February, 1995 Finbarr Flood
M.K./M.M. _______________
Deputy Chairman