Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD95582 Case Number: AD965 Section / Act: S13(9) Parties: IARNROD EIREANN - and - TRANSPORT SALARIED STAFFS' ASSOCIATION |
Appeal of Rights Commissioner's Recommendation No. ST202/95.
Recommendation:
6. Having considered the submissions and background to the claim,
the Court considers that the Rights Commissioner's Recommendation
should be amended and that an ex-gratia sum of £2,000 be paid to
the claimant.
The Court upholds the Rights Commissioner's Recommendation to that
extent and rejects the appeal to the same extent.
The Court so decides.
Division: Ms Owens Mr McHenry Ms Ni Mhurchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD95582 APPEAL DECISION NO. AD596
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS. 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 13(9), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969
PARTIES: IARNROD EIREANN
and
TRANSPORT SALARIED STAFFS' ASSOCIATION
SUBJECT:
1. Appeal of Rights Commissioner's Recommendation No. ST202/95.
BACKGROUND:
2. The dispute concerns a claim on behalf of 1 worker for
compensation for loss of earnings. The worker, who is the Station
Master at Claremorris Station has responsibility for 2 clerical
employees and 23 Traffic staff, as well as the general running of
the station. Following assessment of its operations in Claremorris
and Ballina, the Company transferred 'Driver Locomotive Links' from
Claremorris to Ballina. As a consequence of this, the claimant
lost overtime opportunities. Following rejection by the Company of
his claim for compensation, the dispute was investigated by a
Rights Commissioner who found that the Company has made significant
savings arising from the transfer of operations, and that the
worker suffered some losses. In his findings, he noted that there
was a conflict of evidence in that the Union claimed that the
compensation sought was covered by agreement, while the Company
contended that any agreement only related to 'productivity
measures'.
3. The Rights Commissioner recommended "that the worker receives
2.5 times the average annual loss of £1,393 which equals £2,786 as
provided by the Agreement on Productivity". The Company appealed
the Rights Commissioner's Recommendation to the Labour Court on the
4th of October, 1995. The Court heard the appeal on the 16th of
January, 1996.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. There is no agreement between the Company and the Union
in relation to the payment of compensation to clerical
staff at 2.5 times the annual loss, except in the case of
the implementation of elements of a formal Productivity
Agreement. This is clearly not the case here.
2. The Rights Commissioner did not give due consideration to
the fact that, at the time of the hearing, it was
apparent that there was not going to be any ongoing
significant loss in the Station Master's earnings
(details supplied to the Court).
3. The Rights Commissioner stated that the move was "clearly
a 'productivity measure'". This is rejected on the
grounds that there has been no substantial saving to the
Company as a result of the move.
4. The Company is not obliged to maintain, and does not
guarantee, the earnings of its employees from year to
year given the changes that occur in the workplace. In
this instance, the loss of earnings claimed arose as a
result of a decision to improve operational practices,
and thus improve services to the public, which is always
a priority.
5. The opportunity to work overtime has always fluctuated,
depending on business demands. However, opportunities
for overtime still exist in Claremorris, and are availed
of by the Station Master, as is evidenced by his
substantial earnings (detail supplied).
6. If the Recommendation should be upheld, repercussive
claims could follow from staff in other areas who feel
they have an entitlement to compensation in similar
circumstances.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
5. 1. It is clear that the worker has incurred considerable
financial loss arising from the transfer of the driver
locomotive links (details supplied to the Court).
2. The Company has made the point that levels of overtime
are not guaranteed to individual staff members. This
argument is accepted in general, other than in rostered
duty situations. In this particular case, the duties
involved were rostered on the instructions of the then
Regional Operations (West) Manager. The duty of
supervising locomotive drivers coming on duty was not
merely an ad hoc arrangement but an important daily
necessity to ensure the safe working of the railway.
3. The worker suffered a serious loss of earnings and is,
therefore, entitled to full compensation based on the
agreed formula, i.e., 2.5 times the annual loss of
earnings.
4. The amount of compensation recommended fell short of that
anticipated by the claimant, especially in view of the
fact that the Rights Commissioner did not take into
account the P.E.S.P. or P.C.W. in his calculations.
5. The claim clearly related to 'productivity' in that the
Company's operation moved from one area to another. This
change in operational arrangements yielded major savings
to the Company.
RECOMMENDATION:
6. Having considered the submissions and background to the claim,
the Court considers that the Rights Commissioner's Recommendation
should be amended and that an ex-gratia sum of £2,000 be paid to
the claimant.
The Court upholds the Rights Commissioner's Recommendation to that
extent and rejects the appeal to the same extent.
The Court so decides.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Evelyn Owens
26th January, 1996 --------------
M.K./U.S. Chairman