Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD95154 Case Number: LCR14741 Section / Act: S26(1) Parties: IARNROD EIREANN - and - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION;NATIONAL BUS AND RAILWORKERS UNION |
Claim for compensation for DART drivers.
Recommendation:
In considering this dispute the Court had regard to the
submissions by the parties and in particular the parties
respective interpretation of the Section of Labour Court
Recommendation No. 8912, headed 'Lump Sum Payment for acceptance
of confined link'.
Insofar as the Court is concerned, the section referred to,
imposed a three year 'clawback' period on drivers who having made
an initial option not to operate the EMU might, in certain
circumstances reverse that option.
If the reverse option was made within a period of three years a
repayment of the lump sum was required. If however the three
years was exceeded no 'clawback' was involved. The section of the
recommendation was not intended to place a time-limit on drivers
who are in the categories that are entitled to claim EMU duties.
Accordingly, the Court, on the basis of the above recommends that
the Company concede the Unions claim.
Division: Mr McGrath Mr Pierce Mr Walsh
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD95154 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR14741
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990
PARTIES:
IARNROD EIREANN
AND
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
NATIONAL BUS AND RAILWORKERS UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Claim for compensation for DART drivers.
BACKGROUND:
2. In July, 1984 the Company introduced a Rapid Rail System
(DART) to operate between Howth and Bray. The introduction
of the DART involved the transfer of 52 drivers from Connolly
and Bray depots to a new depot in Fairview.
In May, 1984, the Labour Court issued Recommendation No.
LCR8912 in which the Court recommended on a number of issues
arising from the electrification of the Howth/Bray railway
line. Under the heading of, lump sum payment for acceptance
of confined link, the Court recommended that:- "the Company's
offer to all existing drivers at Connolly 1 and 2 and Bray be
increased to #200 and that the existing drivers who decide
not to opt for Electric Mobile Union (EMU) driving, to be
paid #300.
Drivers who accept the larger lump sum should not be
precluded from applying in the future for transfer to the EMU
link but in the event of making such an application within
three years should be required to repay #300 in instalments
over a period of one year from the date of appointment."
In addition to the #200, drivers who transferred were paid
compensation for the loss of walking time, the loss of
earnings and a disturbance payment to compensate for the
transfer from Connolly to Fairview.
The dispute before the Court concerns the Unions' claim for
compensation on behalf of seven locomotive drivers who
transferred in the period October, 1991 to May, 1994 from
Connolly depot to the DART depot in Fairview. The Company
rejected the claim.
The Company's position is that the only drivers eligible to
receive compensation are the 52 drivers who commenced work on
the DART in July, 1984, plus 15 other drivers who opted for
DART working, but who could not be accommodated until
vacancies arose and 49 drivers who opted to remain in
Connolly could be paid the compensation should they opt to
transfer to Fairview within 3 years from the date of the
Labour Court's recommendation.
The dispute was referred to the Labour Relations Commission.
A number of conciliation conferences took place in the
period 1993/1995. As no agreement could be reached the
dispute was referred to the Labour Court on 27th February,
1995 under Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act,
1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on 30th March, 1995.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The criteria used for the payment of compensation to
drivers who transferred to the DART is based on the
condition that the drivers were attached to Connolly 1/2
and Bray depots at the time of the introduction of the
DART.
2. LCR No. 8912 recommended that the compensation package
be paid to all existing drivers at Connolly 1/2 and Bray
depots. The Company fully accepted this and prior to
this dispute has paid compensation to all eligible
drivers who transferred to the DART. The recommendation
does not indicate that these arrangements should apply
for a three year only.
3. The Company's reference to a cut-off period for the
payment of compensation is something which it has
introduced itself. No such agreement exists between the
parties and no exchange of correspondence has taken
place concerning the matter.
4. The workers concerned are the last of the drivers who
were attached to Connolly No 1/2 and Bray depots at the
time LCR8912 was issued. In the circumstances there is
no justification for the Company's refusal to pay
compensation as per its agreement with the workers.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. It is the Company's understanding that LCR No. 8912
implied that the 49 drivers who did not opt for DART
driving in July, 1984 had three years within which to
change their option. This gave staff on the seniority
list the option to transfer within three years and be
compensated.
2. The special arrangements for compensation, which were
put in place at the time of the introduction of the DART
system, were to ensure that the massive investment which
the Company was making in a Rapid Rail System for
Dublin, was introduced smoothly.
3. There were fears at the time that the potential earnings
in the new depot, would be less than the overtime
earnings that were available at the time, and this was
taken into account.
4. The fears that may have existed in May, 1984 regarding
the level of overtime at the new depot in Fairview have
proved to be unfounded. An examination of the earnings
of drivers based in Connolly 1/2 and drivers based in
Fairview for the year 1993/1994 shows that drivers based
in Fairview had significantly higher earnings.
5. The money provided at the time, for compensation
payments, has now been exhausted. It was never
envisaged that the compensation would be paid on an
open-ended basis.
6. There is no compulsion on drivers to transfer from
Connolly to Fairview, at the present time.
7. The Company is experiencing severe financial
difficulties, and concession of this claim would further
exacerbate the position.
RECOMMENDATION:
In considering this dispute the Court had regard to the
submissions by the parties and in particular the parties
respective interpretation of the Section of Labour Court
Recommendation No. 8912, headed 'Lump Sum Payment for acceptance
of confined link'.
Insofar as the Court is concerned, the section referred to,
imposed a three year 'clawback' period on drivers who having made
an initial option not to operate the EMU might, in certain
circumstances reverse that option.
If the reverse option was made within a period of three years a
repayment of the lump sum was required. If however the three
years was exceeded no 'clawback' was involved. The section of the
recommendation was not intended to place a time-limit on drivers
who are in the categories that are entitled to claim EMU duties.
Accordingly, the Court, on the basis of the above recommends that
the Company concede the Unions claim.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
28th April, 1995 Tom McGrath
F.B./D.T. ______________
Deputy Chairman
Note
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to
Mr. Fran Brennan, Court Secretary.