Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD95544 Case Number: AD9581 Section / Act: S13(9) Parties: IARNROD EIREANN - and - A WORKER;SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION |
Appeal against Rights Commissioner's Recommendation No. CW220/95.
Recommendation:
Taking into account all of the issues in this case and having
considered all the information before it, the Court upholds the
Rights Commissioner's Recommendation and rejects the appeal.
The Court so decides.
Division: Mr Flood Mr Pierce Mr Rorke
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD95544 APPEAL DECISION NO. AD8195
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 13(9), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969
PARTIES:
IARNROD EIREANN
AND
A WORKER
(REPRESENTED BY SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION)
SUBJECT:
1. Appeal against Rights Commissioner's Recommendation No.
CW220/95.
BACKGROUND:
2. A vacancy arose in Galway station for checking duties on
Saturday 13th May, 1995 from 14.00 to 22.10 hours. The Union
is claiming that the worker concerned, a depotperson, should
have been given first choice of the duty. In the event, the
Company assigned another employee from the Freight Depot to
cover for the period in question. The worker informed the
acting supervisor on Friday 12th May, 1995, that he would be
available for the duty in dispute. He was told that another
worker had already been assigned to that shift. He reported
for duty at 14.00 hours on Saturday. At 15.15 hours the
Station Master informed the worker that he was sending him
home. The Union is claiming that the worker should be paid
for the duty, although he did not work it.
The dispute was referred to the Rights Commissioner and a
hearing took place on 4th September, 1995. The Rights
Commissioner's Recommendation is as follows:-
"I recommend that the worker accepts that he has no
claim to any payment for the disputed duty on Saturday.
If this is accepted then I urge the Company to
reinstate it's offer made during the hearing on a
goodwill basis in settlement of this dispute."
At the hearing, the Company offered to pay the worker half of
the disputed day's pay. The Union declined the offer.
The Union appealed the Recommendation to the Labour Court on
25th September, 1995 in accordance with Section 13(9) of the
Industrial Relations Act, 1969. A Labour Court hearing took
place on 6th November, 1995.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The vacancy that arose on 13th May, 1995 was one of
higher duties. It is custom and practise that
depotpersons are given first choice for these duties.
The worker concerned should have been offered the 14.00
- 22.10 hours duty. Instead, the Company rostered
another worker from the Freight Depot without consulting
the Union.
2. The Company made no attempt to resolve the situation on
Saturday but instead sent the worker home, knowing that
this would cause difficulties. No other person outside
the Station has a right to claim this particular duty.
It is only when Station staff are not available that the
duty should be offered elsewhere.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The worker concerned was rostered to work from 21.00 to
03.30 hours Monday to Friday for week commencing 8th
May, 1995. On Saturday, he was rostered from 21.00 to
07.00 hours Sunday morning. If he had worked the
disputed duty, it would have meant working from 14.00 -
07.00 hours, a total of 17 hours. He had been informed
on the Friday night that another employee was rostered
from 14.00 - 22.10 hours.
2. The only agreement whereby depotpersons have first
choice on such vacant duties is in relation to Sunday
working. There is no agreement in relation to Saturday.
The worker is aware of this and signed minutes at a
monthly meeting on behalf of the Union relating to the
agreement. He should have pursued his grievance under
the Company's Grievance Procedure which had been agreed
with the Trade Unions but he did not do so.
DECISION:
Taking into account all of the issues in this case and having
considered all the information before it, the Court upholds the
Rights Commissioner's Recommendation and rejects the appeal.
The Court so decides.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
27th November, 1995 Finbarr Flood
C.O'N./D.T. _______________
Deputy Chairman