Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD95276 Case Number: LCR14886 Section / Act: S26(1) Parties: IARNROD EIREANN - and - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION;NATIONAL BUS AND RAIL UNION |
Dispute concerning loss of earnings.
Recommendation:
The Court, having considered all of the issues raised by the
parties, does not find grounds have been put forward to warrant
payment of compensation and accordingly the Court does not
recommend concession of the Unions' claim.
Division: Mr McGrath Mr McHenry Mr Walsh
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD95276 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR14886
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 RAIL UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Dispute concerning loss of earnings.
BACKGROUND:
2. 1. On 18th May, 1992 the Company cancelled the 09.40
service on Sundays from Limerick to Ballybrophy and the
11.17 return service. The cancellation of the service
led to a loss of overtime earnings for 3 signal men and
2 depot persons attached to Birdhill, Roscrea and Nenagh
depots.
2. The Unions presented a claim for compensation for loss
of earnings arising from the cancellation. The claim
was rejected by the Company and following some local
discussions, it was referred to the Labour Relations
Commission. The claim was subsequently referred to the
Court and was investigated by the Court on 30th
September, 1993.
3. At the Court's investigation, a dispute arose as to what
was covered by the claim. The Court decided that the
parties should return to conciliation to clarify their
positions. A further conciliation conference took place
on 23rd March, 1995 at which the parties clarified their
positions on what was covered by the claim. The claim
was again referred to the Labour Court on 25th April,
1995, under the terms of Section 26(1) of the Industrial
Relations Act, 1990. The Court investigated the dispute
on 29th August, 1995 in Limerick (earliest date suitable
to both parties).
UNIONS' ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The cancellation of the service was outside of the
normal timetable changes. The workers have suffered a
loss and have not had an opportunity to recoup it.
2. The Company has compensated other workers in similar
circumstances (details supplied). In addition, the
workers in the Birdhill depot agreed to major changes in
work practices on the understanding that the Sunday
premium earnings would remain. The workers' lifestyle
and earnings have been greatly affected by the change.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The cancellation of the Sunday service was brought about
as a direct result of a loss of business. The
cancellation was implemented as part of a timetable
change.
2. As the cancellation arose from losses on the service,
compensation is inappropriate. Timetable changes are an
accepted feature of railway operations. The Court has
consistently rejected claims for compensation in such
circumstances where losses have occurred (details
supplied). The Company has never compensated workers
for change in similar circumstances.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court, having considered all of the issues raised by the
parties, does not find grounds have been put forward to warrant
payment of compensation and accordingly the Court does not
recommend concession of the Unions' claim.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
5th Sepbember, 1995 Tom McGrath
J.F./D.T. _______________
Deputy Chairman
Note
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to
Mr. Jerome Forde, Court Secretary.