Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD95302 Case Number: AD9571 Section / Act: S13(9) Parties: DUBLIN BUS - and - A WORKER;THE NATIONAL BUS AND RAIL UNION |
Appeal by Union against Rights Commissioner's Recommendation No. BC282/94.
Recommendation:
The Court having considered the submissions and arguments, is of
the view that the Rights Commissioner's Recommendation should be
upheld.
The Court accordingly rejects the appeal and so decides.
Division: Ms Owens Mr Keogh Ms Ni Mhurchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD95302 APPEAL DECISION NO. AD7195
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 13(9), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969
PARTIES:
DUBLIN BUS
AND
A WORKER
(REPRESENTED BY THE NATIONAL BUS AND RAIL UNION)
SUBJECT:
1. Appeal by Union against Rights Commissioner's Recommendation
No. BC282/94.
BACKGROUND:
2. 1. The worker was employed as a bus conductor in February,
1973. In 1975 he was involved in an accident when his
bus overturned. He sustained injuries to his back and
neck. It resulted in him being absent from work for
seven weeks. He had to attend therapy and psychiatry
sessions as a result of his injuries.
2. As the worker was unable to resume his duties as a
conductor he was given a position as a porter at
Ringsend garage. In 1988/1989 a re-organisation of
rehabilitated staff was agreed with the Unions. The
agreement was for an establishment of twenty
rehabilitated positions which did not include provisions
for a porter at Ringsend garage. The worker was offered
an alternative position in Conyngham Road garage but
this was rejected.
3. The re-organisation took place but the worker insisted
on staying at Ringsend garage. In 1990, a position
became vacant (Observer) at the Company's cash counting
office (Airgeadlann) in Donnybrook. The worker applied
for and was successful in getting the position. He
received little or not overtime in his new position.
The Union submitted a claim for loss of earnings on
behalf of the worker. The Company rejected the claim.
4. The Union referred the dispute to a Rights Commissioner.
The Rights Commissioner investigated the dispute on 28th
April, 1995 and in his recommendation BD282/94
recommended:-
"that the Company make an ex-gratia goodwill
payment of #500.00 to the worker".
The Union appealed the recommendation to the Labour
Court on 9th May, 1995 under Section 13(9) of the
Industrial Relations Act, 1969. The Court heard the
appeal on 20th September, 1995.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The worker has suffered financial loss as a result of
moving to the cash counting centre (Airgeadlann) in
Donnybrook. He was promised promotion and overtime,
including Saturday and Sunday work. These promises
never materialised.
2. The Union refutes the Company's contention that the
Trade Unions negotiated an agreement on the
re-organisation of rehabilitated staff.
3. The worker was coerced into taking up the position in
the cash counting centre even though he was at a
financial loss of #2.00 per week.
4. Porters in Airgeadlann were paid compensation for loss
of earnings in 1990/1991, but the worker was excluded.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The worker was aware when he was interviewed for the
position at the cash counting centre as an "Observer"
that he would suffer a financial loss of #2.00 per week
in his pay when compared to his previous earnings.
Also, he was aware that there was no Sunday or Public
Holiday working. He took up the position in this
knowledge.
2. When the worker was rehabilitated into the position of
porter in July, 1976 following an accident in October,
1975 he was employed at the rate of pay and conditions
of service of the porter grade.
3. The worker did not retain his "Two Person Operation"
(TPO) status following his rehabilitation in 1976. When
a worker is rehabilitated his pay and conditions of
employment is related to the job he is performing. The
vacancy left by a rehabilitated person is advertised and
filled.
DECISION:
The Court having considered the submissions and arguments, is of
the view that the Rights Commissioner's Recommendation should be
upheld.
The Court accordingly rejects the appeal and so decides.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
9th October, 1995 Evelyn Owens
L.W./D.T. ____________
Chairman